Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Open Research OnlineThe Open University’s repository of research publicationsand other research outputs
Student writing in social work educationThesisHow to cite:
Rai, Lucy (2008). Student writing in social work education. PhD thesis The Open University.
For guidance on citations see FAQs.
c© 2008 Lucy Rai
Version: Version of Record
Link(s) to article on publisher’s website:http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21954/ou.ro.000064dc
Copyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyrightowners. For more information on Open Research Online’s data policy on reuse of materials please consult the policiespage.
oro.open.ac.uk
Lucy Rai
BSc Hons, CQSW, Cert HE, PGCE
Student Writing in Social Work Education
Doctorate of Philosophy
Education
July 2008
The Open University
1
Acknowledgements:
I would like to offer my sincere thanks to Theresa Lillis and Barbara Mayor for
their wisdom and patience during the journey I have travelled over the past 7
years.
This thesis would also not have been completed without the patience of my
family and colleagues who have also tolerated with my periodic unavailability
to them.
Finally I would like to thank the students and tutors who gave up their time,
their thoughts and emotional energy and without whom this thesis would not
have been possible.
2
Abstract
This thesis explores the experiences of a group of social work students
undertaking assessed academic writing as part of their professional training
through distance learning in the UK in 2001. Drawing upon the concept of
‘academic literacies’ and informed by a psychosocial approach, this thesis
explores the nature of students’ writing within the context of the experiences
of students and tutors.
Writing in social work requires students to include reflections on personal
experience and values. Due to this personal aspect of writing in social work, I
have taken a particular interest in the relationship between identity and
writing. In doing so I draw upon current research based upon sociological
perspectives on writer identity but also critically examine the potential
contribution of concepts from what I will generally be referring to as a
‘psychosocial’ approach, which incorporates elements of psychology and
psychoanalysis alongside a sociological world view. In particular I explore the
ways in which a psychosocial approach to writer identity can inform our
understanding of writing practices surrounding the creation of student texts in
higher education.
My central argument is that academic writing in social work poses a particular
challenge to student writers and their tutors due to its lack of transparency
and the degree of self-disclosure required of authors. This thesis shows that,
in common with higher education more generally writing conventions in social
work are frequently implicit and contradictory. Additionally, the integration of
3
personal experiences and values with theoretical discussion poses significant
difficulties for students and tutors. Such ‘self-disclosure’ has implications
which become evident when applying a psychosocial perspective to writer
identity. I draw together these implications in relation to three features of
writing practices, namely emotion, circularity, and human interaction. Emotion
in this context refers to the emotion both experienced by students whilst
writing texts and responding to feedback on them. This involves a circular
process based upon not only the students’ actions but also their interaction
with others, primarily the tutor. I conclude by offering some pedagogical
implications and suggesting some future research arising from this thesis.
4
List of appendices (on DVD)
1. Covering letter sent to participants
2. Interview outlines
3. Revised interview outlines
4. Revised second interview questions
5. List of themes arising from initial notes on audio recordings of
interviews
6. Illustration of theme: emotion
7. Tabulation of tutor comments
8. Letter sent to tutors to invite participation in the tutor conference
9. Telephone conference questions
10. Illustration of transcription with key
11. 11a. Text A
12. 11b. Text B.
13. 12a. Patricia’s foundation course student text
14. 12b. Patricia’s practice learning course student text
5
List of Figures
Figure 1 Writing about self across a notional spectrum of academic disciplines............... 22
Figure 2 The process of determining the final research questions .................................... 25
Figure 3 Breakdown of entrants to training for social work, teaching and law by age ....... 38
Figure 4 Breakdown of entrants to training for social work, teaching and law by gender ................................................................................................................. 38
Figure 5 Breakdown of entrants to training for social work, teaching and law by prior Qualifications....................................................................................................... 39
Figure 6 Breakdown of entrants to training for social work, teaching and law by self-declared ethnicity.......................................................................................... 40
Figure 7 Written course guidance...................................................................................... 46
Figure 8 Summary of participant information: prior qualifications...................................... 48
Figure 9 Summary of participant information: ethnicity, gender ........................................ 49
Figure 10 Models of literacy ................................................................................................ 56
Figure 11 Purposes of writing in social work ....................................................................... 73
Figure 12 A ‘social’ view of writer and reader as both doing something and being represented in the text (Ivanic 1997 p. 96) ........................................................ 110
Figure 13 Ivanič’s aspects of writer identity (Clark and Ivanic, 1997, p. 137).................... 112
Figure 14 Discourse as text, interaction and content (adapted from Faricough, 1989 by Ivanič, 1998, p. 41) .............................................................................. 116
Figure 15 Rachel. Extract from Ivanič 1998 p. 133-4 ........................................................ 119
Figure 16 The individual, self and identities ...................................................................... 130
Figure 17 Student interviews ............................................................................................. 150
Figure 18 Texts collected .................................................................................................. 158
Figure 19 Summary of course materials............................................................................ 159
Figure 20 Written course guides........................................................................................ 160
Figure 21 Tabulation of data against the research questions............................................ 163
Figure 22 Summary of guidance documents .................................................................... 203
Figure 23 Comparison of grades ...................................................................................... 226
Figure 24 Social work student writing ............................................................................... 240
Figure 25 Use of the first person singular pronouns (I, me, my) on the practice learning and foundation courses ...................................................................... 270
Figure 26 Count of pronouns categorised by position of ‘I as Guide’,’ I as Architect’, ‘I as Opinion holder’ and ‘I as Narrator-reflector’ .............................................. 278
Figure 27 Knowledge-desire-power relations ................................................................... 359
6
Key to styles used in data extracts
1. Extract from student interview
Second extract from student interview, interviewee ‘Sally’ S2: Sally interview: xth Month Year
2. Extract from telephone conference interview
Extract from tutor conference
Tutor 5
3. Extract from written tutor comment
Extract from written tutor comment Tutor 4 commenting on assignment x
4. Extract from written course guidance
Extract from written course guidance
Practice learning guide
5. Extract from student text
Well, you have just read the account of my first day in the caring profession, which was eight years ago, but I can still recall it as if it had happened last week. Pamela Practice learning course assignment 2
7
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: ..............................................................................2
LIST OF APPENDICES (ON DVD)..................................................................5
LIST OF FIGURES ..........................................................................................6
KEY TO STYLES USED IN DATA EXTRACTS..............................................7
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................8
1. CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...........................................................14
1.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................14 1.1.1 The origins of my research interest: Why student writing in social work education? ................................................................................................................15
1.1.2 My roots in social work: psychoanalytic perspectives ...................................16
1.2 The aims of the thesis...........................................................................................20
1.2.1 The self in academic social work writing .......................................................20
1.2.2 Developing a model of writer identity............................................................22
1.3 The research questions ........................................................................................23
1.4 Academic literacies ..............................................................................................25
1.5 Student writing in social work............................................................................27
1.6 Professional academic writing in social work: a contested practice ...............29
1.7 Social work education in the UK ........................................................................35 1.7.1 Social work students in the UK ......................................................................36
1.7.1.1 Gender, age, qualifications and ethnicity 37
1.7.1.2 Social Class 40
1.8 The focus of the study..........................................................................................41
1.8.1 An outline of the social work programme studied..........................................42
1.8.1.1 The practice learning course 42
1.8.1.2 The foundation course 43
1.8.1.3 Key differences between the practice learning and foundation courses 44
1.8.1.4 The course materials 45
1.8.1.5 The students and their texts 46
1.8.1.6 The case studies 49
1.9 The structure of the thesis...................................................................................50
2. CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................52
2.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................52
2.2 Academic writing .................................................................................................52
8
2.2.1 Academic literacies.........................................................................................55
2.2.2 Disciplinarity ..................................................................................................59
2.2.3 Non-traditional students..................................................................................63
2.3 Literacy and Writing Practices...........................................................................66 2.3.1 Academic writing in practice-based higher education....................................68
2.4 Student writing in social work in the US ...........................................................72
2.5 Student writing in social work: the UK context................................................78 2.5.1 Reflective practice in social work education ..................................................80
2.5.2 Reflective writing ...........................................................................................83
2.6 ‘Risky writing'......................................................................................................89
2.7 Self-disclosure.......................................................................................................91
2.8 Conclusion ............................................................................................................94
3. CHAPTER THREE: IDENTITY IN WRITING.............................................96
3.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................96
3.2 Theorising social identity: the relevance of identity to academic writing ......96
3.3 Identity as ‘subject’: the influence of radical social theory .............................97
3.4 Subjects and institutions....................................................................................102
3.4.1 Ideological subjugation.................................................................................102
3.4.2 Beyond class-based identification ................................................................102
3.5 Otherness and translation .................................................................................105
3.6 Writing and identity: Roz Ivanič......................................................................109
3.7 Developing Ivanič’s model of writer identity ..................................................117 3.7.1 Institutional practices in social work writing................................................119
3.7.2 A sociological approach to writer identity: some unanswered questions.....122
3.8 Introducing a psychosocial perspective ...........................................................124
3.8.1 Multiplicity and salience...............................................................................124
3.8.2 Identity and the self.......................................................................................126
3.8.3 Locating the self in writer identity................................................................131
3.8.4 Psychoanalytic approaches to identity..........................................................134
3.8.4.1 Desire and the unconscious 136
3.9 Conclusion .......................................................................................................141
4. CHAPTER FOUR: METHODOLOGY......................................................143
4.1 Introduction........................................................................................................143
4.2 The research questions: exploring student writing.........................................143
4.3 Gaining access to students.................................................................................145
9
4.3.1 Engaging student involvement......................................................................145
4.3.2 Consent .........................................................................................................146
4.3.3 The group studied .........................................................................................147
4.4 The process of data collection ...........................................................................148 4.4.1 Summary of data collected ...........................................................................148
4.4.2 Interviews with students ...............................................................................150
4.4.3 Transcription and note making of interviews ...............................................153
4.4.4 Talk with students in the context of texts .....................................................155
4.4.5 Student texts..................................................................................................157
4.4.6 Course materials ...........................................................................................159
4.4.7 Telephone interviewing ................................................................................160
4.4.8 Study advice..................................................................................................162
4.5 Where the data has been used...........................................................................162
4.6 A psychologically informed approach to interviewing ...................................164 4.6.1 Epistemological perspective .........................................................................164
4.6.2 Principles of interviewing.............................................................................165
4.7 Participant involvement in data production through interviewing ..............167
4.7.1 Recognising that explicit identities result in situated, partial data ...............167
4.7.2 Responding to unique experiences in the context of texts............................168
4.7.3 Recognising power dynamics .......................................................................168
4.7.4 Participant: Researcher Positioning ..............................................................171
4.8 The place of emotion..........................................................................................172
4.9 Empathic intuitive interviewing .......................................................................175
4.10 Applying the principles of interviewing to telephone discussion interviewing....................................................................................................................................183
4.11 Data analysis.....................................................................................................186 4.11.1 Progressive focusing ...................................................................................187
4.11.2 Case study as method..................................................................................189
4.11.3 Psychological influences on the analysis....................................................193
4.11.4 First person singular pronoun use (I, me, my)............................................195
4.12 Conclusion ........................................................................................................200
5. CHAPTER FIVE: STUDENT WRITING ON THE DIPLOMA IN SOCIAL WORK: EXPECTATIONS OF WRITING .....................................................202
5.1 Introduction........................................................................................................202
5.2 Exploring the written guidance ........................................................................203 5.2.1 The aims of the practice learning and foundation courses............................204
10
5.3 Assessment expectations....................................................................................207 5.3.1 Writing on the foundation course .................................................................207
5.3.2 Writing on the practice learning course........................................................211
5.4 Guidance on how to write on the practice learning and foundation courses214
5.5 The implicit understanding of tutors about writing on the practice learning course ........................................................................................................................217
5.5.1 ‘A house style’? ............................................................................................218
5.5.2 ‘Academic’ versus ‘reflective writing’ .........................................................219
5.5.3 A lack of clarity?...........................................................................................225
5.6 The experiences of students...............................................................................226 5.6.1 Grades as indicators of success? ...................................................................226
5.6.2 “Its getting it down in a format that’s acceptable to the university” (Patricia)...............................................................................................................................229
5.6.3 “A slightly less academic essay” (David).....................................................231
5.6.4 “The writing is completely different” (Pamela) ...........................................232
5.6.5 “You’re just writing and making sure that everything is there” (Bernie).....233
5.7 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................235
6. CHAPTER SIX: REFLECTIVE WRITING IN SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION.....................................................................................................................238
6.1. Introduction.......................................................................................................238
6.2 The nature of reflective writing ........................................................................240
6.3 Managing the tensions .......................................................................................244 6.3.1 Integrating experiential and theoretical writing............................................244
6.3.2 Responses to tutor feedback .........................................................................248
6.3.3 ‘I found I was going from past to present quite a lot.’..................................253
6.3.4 ‘I think that basically it is the requirement to put the ‘I’ centre stage.’........253
6.3.5 Summary of student experience in managing tensions.................................255
6.4 Experiential writing: the impact of writing about personal experience and values.........................................................................................................................256
6.4.1 Patricia ..........................................................................................................256
6.4.2 Bernie............................................................................................................259
6.4.3 Pamela...........................................................................................................262
6.4.4 David.............................................................................................................265
6.4.5 Summary of the impact on students of writing about personal experience ..268
6.5 Use of first person singular pronouns ..............................................................269
6.6. Conclusion .........................................................................................................287
11
7. CHAPTER SEVEN: DEVELOPING A PSYCHOSOCIAL PERSPECTIVE TO WRITER IDENTITY ...............................................................................290
7.1 Introduction........................................................................................................290
7.2 Patricia ................................................................................................................291 7.2.1 Developing identities ....................................................................................291
7.2.2 Emotional worlds..........................................................................................295
7.2.3 Identities and interpersonal interactions: Patricia and her tutors ..................297
7.3 Bernie ..................................................................................................................304 7.3.1 Persistently salient identities.........................................................................305
7.3.2 Repeating discourses.....................................................................................311
7.4 Pamela.................................................................................................................316 7.4.1 In the shadow of low self-confidence ...........................................................316
7.4.2 Emerging identities .......................................................................................324
7.5.David ...................................................................................................................326 7.5.1 It’s not ‘me’ ..................................................................................................326
7.6. Conclusion .........................................................................................................334
8. CHAPTER EIGHT: DISCUSSION ...........................................................336
8.1 Introduction........................................................................................................336
8.2 Addressing the gap identified in the literature ...............................................336
8.3 Findings...............................................................................................................338 8.3.1 Writing in social work education..................................................................338
8.3.1.1 Writing conventions across and within courses are implicit and taught inconsistently 338
8.3.1.2 Tutors’ expectations of students’ writing on the practice learning course were particularly vague. 339
8.3.1.3 The practice learning course involved ‘reflective writing’ which required the challenging integration of theoretical and experiential elements 340
8.3.1.4 Students’ reflective writing involved a particular use of the first person singular pronouns: ‘I as narrator-reflector’’ 342
8.3.1.5 The writing practices developed by students involved the key elements of circularity, human interaction and emotion 343
8.3.1.6 Reflective writing involved students in emotionally demanding self-disclosure 344
8.3.2 A psychosocial perspective on writer identity..............................................345
8.3.2.1 Emotion was a significant influence on writing practices 346
8.3.2.2 There was evidence of both the multiplicity of students’ identities and the context-specific salience of particular identities 347
12
8.3.2.3 The core self 348
8.3.2.4 Unconscious and apparently irrational behaviour were features of students’ writing practices 349
8.3.2.5.Students used coping strategies which included projection and introjection 350
8.4 Contribution to the field....................................................................................351 8.4.1 Student writing in social work ......................................................................352
8.4.2 Reflective writing .........................................................................................353
8.4.3 Pronoun use...................................................................................................354
8.4.4 Writer identity...............................................................................................355
8.4.4.1 Circularity, shadows and representations 357
8.5 Critique of methodology....................................................................................360 8.5.1 The scope of the study ..................................................................................360
8.5.2 A tutor perspective........................................................................................361
8.5.3 A participatory approach ..............................................................................362
8.5.4 Psychoanalytic interpretations ......................................................................363
8.5.5 Text-level analysis ........................................................................................365
8.5.6 Conflicting roles ...........................................................................................365
8.6 Pedagogical implications ...................................................................................366 8.6.1 Recognising the demands of reflective writing ............................................366
8.6.2 Naming and teaching reflective writing........................................................367
8.6.3. Providing feedback and acknowledging self-disclosure..............................368
8.6.4. The interpersonal aspect of student writing.................................................369
8.6.5 Reflective writing within a spectrum of social work writing .......................370
8.6.6 Identity and non-traditional students ............................................................371
8.7 Future work........................................................................................................372 8.7.1 What is distinctive about reflective writing, as used in social work education, in terms of the linguistic demands made of students? ...........................................372
8.7.2 To what extent can the additional category of ‘I as narrator-reflector’ be justified?.................................................................................................................373
8.7.3 What is the significance of emotion in the creation of and assessment of texts in practice-based education?..................................................................................374
8.7.4 What contributions could be made to understanding writer identity by a psychosocial perspective?......................................................................................374
8.8 My research journey..........................................................................................375
REFERENCES ............................................................................................378
13
1. Chapter one: Introduction
1.1 Introduction
In this chapter I will outline my motivations for undertaking the research upon
which this thesis is based, highlighting the significance of my own teaching
and learning experiences as well as my professional background in social
work. I will identify the aims of the thesis and explain the process of
developing my final set of research questions which have driven my
investigation. I have drawn significantly upon a body of work sharing a
concern with ‘academic literacies’ and I will briefly introduce this approach to
studying academic writing. Focusing specifically on professional academic
writing undertaken by social work academics and practitioners, I will
summarise a debate which illustrates some of the issues which contribute to
the contested nature of academic writing in social work, in particular the
unusually central place of the self in writing. Finally I will provide a brief
summary of the specific focus of the study undertaken, including outlining the
programme of study and sources of data used.
This thesis explores the experiences of social work students engaged in
academic writing undertaken as part of their professional training through
distance learning in the UK in 2001. Drawing upon literature from the fields of
academic literacy, the study of identity and academic writing in social work, I
hope to contribute to our understanding of the specific nature of assessed
academic writing undertaken by social work students. In doing so, I also aim
to expand established sociologically orientated theories of writer identity
14
(Clark and Ivanic, 1997; Ivanic, 1998; Ivanič, 2006), through a consideration
of the potential contribution of perspectives from psychology and
psychoanalysis.
1.1.1 The origins of my research interest: Why student writing
in social work education?
This thesis has its roots in my experiences as a learner, social worker and
most recently as a social work educator, where my interest in academic
writing initially arose. The research on which this thesis is based evolved from
my reflections upon student experiences and my attempts to support students
to develop their writing skills. In particular I became aware of the challenge
faced by student social workers undertaking a specific form of writing often
referred to as ‘reflective writing’, in the context of assessed academic
assignments. By reflective writing I am referring broadly to writing in which the
author uses their own experiences and reflections upon these experiences as
the focus for writing. In social work, such writing requires the author to place
their own experiences and values at the heart of their writing, a practice which
appears out of place within the context of much academic assessment.
What follows is an example of reflective writing which is broadly
representative of writing required of social work students. In this section I
explore the journey that led me to undertaking this thesis. This is relevant as
my specific approach and skills have been strongly influenced by my
extensive involvement in the discourses of the social work profession, where I
trained and worked as a qualified social work practitioner for ten years prior to
entering higher education.
15
1.1.2 My roots in social work: psychoanalytic perspectives
My immersion in the particular discourses of social work began during my
childhood when I was influenced by my mother’s profession as a social
worker and my father’s as a general practitioner and psychiatrist. My parents’
work lives resulted in our home life being influenced by psychoanalytic
discourses which, as a young adult, I took very much for granted. I only
became conscious of the origins of these discourses through academic study,
where I came across ideas in books that I already understood as common
sense truths. As an undergraduate student I enjoyed exploring ideas and
perspectives that were new and unfamiliar as well as critically re-examining
psychoanalytic perspectives. This process has enabled me to modify and
extend my world view (Payne, 1990) of social and human interaction but I still
retain many foundational principles which I believe originated in my childhood
and young adulthood and these have influenced my work as a social worker,
my training choices, teaching experience and ultimately my research into
writing.
After working for ten years as a social worker I moved into higher education,
primarily teaching social work students. I worked initially in a college of further
education and subsequently in a large distance learning university. At both of
these institutions I worked primarily with students who could be described as
‘non traditional’ (Lillis, 2001), mature women learners, many from lower social
economic groups and some of black and minority ethnic heritage. I also took a
particular interest in supporting students with expressed difficulties with
academic writing, offering both additional workshops and individual sessions.
As a result of working with these students, I became aware of difficulties
16
experienced by many writers (evidenced by lower grades, frequency of re-sits
and student testimony) with a particular form of assessed academic writing in
which there was a requirement to integrate discussion of students’ own
practice experience and self-reflection with theory.
In approaching this study I am aware that I have been influenced by aspects
of my identity rooted in my disciplinary and vocational interests, stemming
from social work and adult education, as outlined above. In addition, my
personal experiences or identity beyond my work roles have also influenced
both the inspiration for and conduct of my thesis. For example, I am a woman
and a mother of dual heritage children. I have grown up primarily within
‘middle class’ social surroundings with financial privileges based in central
England, but influenced by my heritage of Scots/Irish Protestant ship
builders/teachers and Quaker grandparents. These aspects of who I am have
influenced my own identity in many ways, including the sense that I live
(temporarily?) in the ‘foreign’ culture of England despite the fact that I have
never lived anywhere else. The addition of Nepal to our family heritage has
accentuated this sense of our culture and heritage residing somewhere within
ourselves rather than in the place where we live, and being expressed
through language, music, images, memories and common understandings of
ways of being.
In writing this thesis I am also influenced by my own experiences of education
as a child. My consistent experience throughout school was as a ‘could do
really well if she tried’ – B+ child. This faint praise had a significant impact on
me. Despite my apparent lack of will to do well, I moved through school
17
exams, on to higher education and into professional social work, in my mind
scraping through at each hurdle. The impact of critical comments about my
writing has been at the core of my educational experience and has never
disappeared. I did have a will to do well but I carried with me the assumption
that my ‘poor spelling’, much criticised by my teachers regardless of the
quality of the work in other respects, must be indicative of my abilities, despite
the fact that it was a limitation shared with both parents (although my father
still found his way to study medicine at Cambridge University), my sister and
now one of my sons. As an adult, I can look back on my childhood efforts and
see that criticism of my spelling by teachers dominated my perception of
myself as a participant in learning and resulted in me internalising a view of
myself as ‘non academic’. I can also contrast this with my son’s experience,
who although he is in a lower set for spelling, excels in all his other subjects
and receives deserved praise for his abilities from his teachers as well as
support with his spelling.
Regardless of whether my poor spelling resulted from genetics, poor teaching
or lack of application on my part, the emotional and cognitive impact of never
apparently doing myself justice has stayed with me. This experience
resonated as I worked alongside my first group of social work students, all
sharing a black Caribbean heritage and all, apparently, experiencing
difficulties with academic English. I have been lucky. A computer spell
checker has enabled me to participate in higher education as a learner,
educator and researcher – or maybe I just started to ‘try harder’. Puzzling over
the reasons for the common difficulties amongst the group of Jamaican
heritage students with whom I was working did not seem to offer such a
18
simple solution, since they struggled not only with spellings which were not
consistent with their colloquial speech but also with an unfamiliar grammar
rooted in a form of English that they neither grew up nor lived with outside of
the world of work and the university.
These are just a very few aspects of who I am, but they are important here in
that they represent a history which has resulted in my participation in a
particular set of discourses relating to student writing. This history is the
source of my identification with the subject of the study, the formulation of my
research questions, methodology, and analysis. My academic perspective has
been influenced by my disciplinary orientation and interest in psychoanalytic
ideas. My motivation to research students’ experiences of academic writing
has been motivated by both my own experiences as a writer and those of
students with whom I have worked. ‘Who I am’ and the way in which I have
presented myself have also had an impact upon the participants and their
contributions to the study.
The reflections offered here, whilst being personally uncomfortable, illustrate
some of the requirements of reflective writing in social work education at
university. The ‘self’ is drawn into academic study and writing to a degree
which is unusual within the spectrum of academic writing. The identity of the
writer therefore becomes central as both the subject of discussion and the
originator of the reflection (Salmon, 1989; Brockbank and McGill, 1998).
19
1.2 The aims of the thesis
1.2.1 The self in academic social work writing
The primary aim of this thesis is to offer an insight into the experiences of
student social workers participating in an example of practice-based academic
writing. Social work as a discipline places the self at the centre of much
student learning, including academic writing. This disciplinary valuing of the
self has implications for academic writing in social work education. It also
raises questions about the way in which academic writing in social work might
be out of step with academic writing in the academy and therefore presents
significant difficulties for both students and tutors.
Although there has not been a debate in the UK about the implications of
placing the self at the centre of academic student writing in social work, there
has been considerable academic interest in reflection as a tool of assessment
and learning within social work and in related practice-based disciplines (Boud
et al., 1985; Boud, 1999; Moon, 1999a; Winter et al., 1999; Creme, 2000;
Hoadley-Maidment, 2000; Stierer, 2000; Moon, 2002; Moon, 2004; Creme,
2005). Reflective practice has a long-standing position in social work
education, evolving from concepts such as the use of self (O’Connor et al.,
2006) and the internal supervisor (Smith, 2005).The curriculum and
assessment of social work in England, under the regulation of the Central
20
Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW)1 and more
recently under the General Social Care Council2, specifically identifies
reflection as an essential component of professional training (CCETSW, 1996;
Department of Health, 2002). The assessment of reflective practice requires
students not only to draw upon their personal values and past experiences but
also to make links with relevant theoretical knowledge. This is a complex
process which not only challenges students’ cognitive skills but involves
sharing of personal experiences and insight. Boud (1999) suggested that the
specific nature of reflection could pose particular challenges when drawn into
the arena of assessment due to inherent contradictions (discussed below in
2.5.1) and that the use of reflection in assessment should be treated with
great caution (Boud, 1999, p.123). Despite these contradictions, the
assessment of reflective practice in social work education is required and is
also assessed.
1 The Central Council for the Education and Training of Social Workers was the body
responsible for social work education in England prior to the General Social Care Council.
2 Regulations for assessment have changed since the beginning of this study. During this
study the duties of CCETSW were taken over by separate training councils in each of the
countries of the UK, overseen by the General Social Care Council. References here are to the
regulations as they stood for students registered on Diploma in Social Work programmes in
2001, before CCETSW was disestablished.
21
The centrality of the self to academic student writing in social work is
particularly significant because such a focus places it out of step with the
wider academy. In the following Figure I present a notional spectrum of
expectations in relation to the explicit presence of the self in academic student
writing:
Figure 1 Writing about self across a notional spectrum of academic disciplines
Self in writing Absence of self in writing
Humanities
Social work Practice-
based courses
Social Sciences
Physical sciences
There are many ways in which the self may appear in a text; within social
work the writer is expected to include accounts of and reflections on both
personal experience and experience deriving from practice. In addition
students are required to explore their own personal values in relation to
professional values laid down in the Code of Practice applicable to social
workers (Department of Health, 2002). I refer to the inclusion of personal
information involving the self in texts as ‘self-disclosure’. In 2.7 I will be
exploring the implications for students and tutors of this unusually high
demand for self-disclosure within the context of academic assessed writing.
1.2.2 Developing a model of writer identity
In this thesis I have drawn upon Ivanič (Clark and Ivanic, 1997; Ivanic, 1998;
Ivanič, 2006). This research on writer identity in academic writing has drawn
22
primarily upon sociologically orientated perspectives of identity. Although such
models have provided an important starting point for this study, I have found
that the lack of a more psychologically orientated perspective on identity has
limited the value of these models particularly in the task of exploring key
aspects of the self such as the unconscious and emotion. In this thesis I
consider the potential contribution of concepts drawn from the disciplines of
psychology and psychoanalysis. For example, I have drawn upon the work of
Hunt and Sampson (2006) who have theorised writer identity in the context of
creative writing using work from a range of disciplines including cognitive
psychology, psychoanalysis and philosophy. A full discussion of writer
identity, which underpins this thesis, is provided in chapter 3.
1.3 The research questions
The research questions informing this thesis have arisen from a combination
of my experiences as a social work educator, as outlined above, and a study
of literature relating to academic writing. I began with observations and
concerns arising from my teaching practice and developed the following
hypotheses:
1. There are significant differences in the requirements of student
academic writing between courses within a single social work
programme such as the one studied.
2. The specific nature of the writing task influences both the way in
which students engage with academic writing and also the feedback
dialogue between tutor and student.
23
3. The identity of student and tutor are important factors in student
writing
I based my original research questions closely upon these hypotheses,
focusing quite broadly upon the concepts of ‘experience’ and ‘identity’:
In the context of a distance learning social work education programme:
1. What are the requirements and expectations of different kinds of
student writing?
2. How do prior experiences (personal and educational) impact on the
experience and practice of student writing?
3. How do student and tutor identities influence different kinds of
student writing?
My first set of interviews with students were based around these research
questions and explored participants’ initial experiences writing in an academic
context. From this initial exploration, together with an analysis of assignment
and writing guidance provided to students in relation to each course of study
and my continued reading in the field of academic literacies, I became
concerned about the usefulness of my original formulation of the research
questions. I found that I needed to refine them in response to my developing a
deeper understanding of the significance of experience and self in writing. The
experiences shared in the first set of student interviews proved to be key to
understanding the ways in which students responded to the writing tasks.
Figure 2 illustrates the influences which led me to my final set of research
questions.
24
Figure 2: The process of determining the final research questions
Research questions
Influence of my reflections on data
Issues arising from Research Literature My observations
as an educator
The final research questions were therefore:
In the context of a distance learning social work education programme
(specifically the programme studied):
What differences exist in the requirements and expectations of different kinds
of assessed student texts written by students, such as reflective writing and
the form of applied social science essay?
How does the specific nature of the writing task influence students’ and tutors’
engagement with academic writing?
How does student identity influence the experience and practice of different
kinds of student writing?
1.4 Academic literacies
This thesis is concerned with writing, specifically academic student writing. In
exploring the experiences of students engaged in writing within social work I
25
have drawn upon a body of work which has been concerned with ‘academic
literacies’. This body of work includes research on disciplinarity, or in other
words the ways in which academic disciplines have developed particular
expectations of writing which reflect internal discourses and functions of
writing (Lea and Street, 1998; Prior, 1998). Disciplinarity is closely associated
with the concept of ‘academic literacies’ (Lea and Street, 1998) which
recognises not only the diversity of writing requirements across disciplines,
but the extent to which such writing practices are local to institutions, courses
and even individual tutors. An academic literacies approach recognises
academic writing as a ‘social’ practice, or an activity embedded in social and
interpersonal ways of being (Bazerman, 1981; Bazerman, 1988; Lea and
Stierer eds, 2000; Bazerman and Prior, 2004). This work attaches particular
importance, therefore, to the influence of social, institutional and inter-
personal contexts within which writing acts take place. This body of work
includes research which explores the notion of the ‘non traditional student’
(Lillis, 1997; Lillis, 2001; Lillis and Turner, 2001; Lillis, 2003) and introduces
ideas about inequalities of access to privileged knowledge and skills. This
work suggests that students’ choices are influenced by their self-positioning in
relation to higher education institutions and their studies, and those aspects of
identity such as social class, ethnicity, religion and gender are influential on
their writing. Lillis (2001) also makes an important contribution in relation to
the ‘meaning making’ of students and the ways in which they negotiate what
she terms the ‘institutional practice of mystery’ (Lillis, 2001, p. 76) to
encapsulate the ways in which the expectations of academic writing can be
experienced as both confusing and obscure.
26
This study is particularly concerned with research drawing upon an approach
to academic writing which has focused on writer and reader identity (Clark
and Ivanic, 1997; Ivanič, 1998; Lillis, 2001; Ivanič, 2006). This work will be
explored in some detail in chapter 3, as writer identity has a particular
significance for the reflective writing tasks required of social work students.
Research on writer identity in higher education has focused primarily on
sociological perspectives on identity and the ways in which their different
aspects of social identity are represented in texts. Drawing upon this model,
this thesis also explores the potential contribution of ‘psychosocial’
perspectives on identity. This approach draws together post-structural
perspectives on society and selected concepts from psychology and
psychoanalysis, as represented by Frosh (1991; 2002) and Henriques et al.
(1998). These works provide opportunities to examine the emotional and
unconscious aspects of identity.
1.5 Student writing in social work
Social work students are required to write for various purposes during their
studies. These purposes include writing undertaken in practice, such as
recording contact with service users, court reports or assessment
documentation. This ‘professional writing’ is indirectly assessed in the practice
setting as part of students’ overall competence as a practitioner. In addition,
students undertake writing which is more directly assessed and is undertaken
within the context of academic learning in the university. Such writing also
varies and may include reflective reports, timed examinations, journals and
various types of writing intended to demonstrate a student’s ability to
27
demonstrate knowledge and the ability to construct an argument. This ability
is frequently tested through what is commonly referred to as the essay, based
upon conventions derived from academic writing in the social sciences. For
the purposes of this thesis I will be referring to all writing undertaken in the
context of the university as ‘academic student writing’. I will refer to writing
undertaken by practitioners and academics (as opposed to students) and
published in academic journals or professional periodicals as ‘academic
writing’.
Practice-based higher education commonly requires students to undertake
forms of academic student writing which involve reflection and analysis of
practice experiences (Baynham, 2000; Hoadley-Maidment, 2000; Stierer,
2000). As such, some of the academic student writing on practice-based
courses involves a relatively high degree of involvement of the author’s self in
the text, see Figure 1 above. Social work education has a requirement to
reflect not only on practice but also on personal experience, including
personal and professional values. This requirement derived from the guidance
of the body which regulated the award of the Diploma in Social Work at the
time of the study, CCETSW. CCETSW required all Diploma in Social Work
programmes to assess students in a ‘significant’ piece of writing which relates
theory to practice (Central Council for the Education and Training of Social
Workers 1995). In this piece of writing students were required to:
‘demonstrate that they have … reflected upon and critically analysed their practice’ (CCETSW, 1995)
It is this requirement which underpins what I will be referring to as the
‘reflective writing’ required of students. The emphasis on reflective writing in
28
social work education continues in the current professional qualifying award,
the Degree in Social Work. The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) set
academic benchmark standards in 2000 which form part of the framework
documents upon which the curriculum and standards for qualification are set.
This document re-states the relevance of an extended piece of reflective
writing and emphasises the importance of students developing cognitive skills
in integrating theory, values and practice (QAA, 2000). Reflective writing
involves particular features which students can find difficult to address, the
reasons for which will be the focus of further discussion throughout this thesis.
1.6 Professional academic writing in social work:
a contested practice
My research has focused specifically on student writing in social work. The
specific nature of academic writing undertaken by social work students has
received little scholarly attention and where it has, this has been in the context
of the challenges it poses to students (Simon and Soven, 1989; Waller, 1996;
Waller, 2000; Alter and Adkins, 2001; Watson, 2002). The centrality of the self
and reflection is not restricted to writing undertaken by student social workers.
The following review of literature relates to writing undertaken by social work
academics and practitioners and illustrates the contested nature of published
academic writing in social work. This is relevant to this thesis because such
writing has much in common with the academic writing undertaken by social
work students both in terms of the content (reflective writing drawing on
29
practice and personal values) and the challenges posed by applying expected
conventions to such content.
Professional academic writing undertaken by social work practitioners and
academics has attracted some scholarly debate (Berger, 1990; Goldstein,
1993; Kirk, 1993; Austin and McClelland, 1998; Green, 1998; Rehr et al.,
1998; Bibus et al., 1999; Sherman, 1999; Tasker, 1999; Witkin, 2000;
Dinerman, 2003; Staudt et al., 2003; Heron and Murray, 2004; Waldman,
2005). This literature, which is primarily in the form of editorials or reflections
on personal or institutional practices, focuses on questioning publishing
patterns and the appropriateness of the style required by social work
academic journals. One of the purposes of academic publication in social
work is to disseminate best practice both to inform practitioners and also to
develop policy relating to the provision of services. Concern over the
capability of publications to achieve this outcome has stimulated debate both
about the suitability of the genre encouraged by peer-reviewed journals and
also questioning whether publication is accessible to practitioners both as
authors and readers. Concern has also been expressed that the genre of
writing required by peer reviewed-journals may be distorting the areas of
practice which are discussed and influencing the practitioners who have their
voices heard. Such implicit regulation has consequences for which
practitioners from particular sectors of the social work profession can
influence policy development through publication.
Heron and Murray (2004) writing in the UK and Rehr et al., (1998) writing in
the US both focus on difficulties surrounding practitioners publishing and
30
investigate some possible barriers to writing. In the UK Heron suggests that
these include issues of identity and a lack of confidence around writing for
academic journals whilst Rehr et al., (1998) identify a problematic divide in the
US between both the form of writing undertaken by academics and practising
social workers and the sites of publication. Rehr et al., (1988) suggest that
where practitioners are publishing, it is overlooked by academics due to the
specialist sites of publication. Heron and Murray (2004) suggest the voices of
some practitioners, in particular residential workers, are marginalised as they
are less likely to publish in part due to a lack of identification with the
academic world, and in part due to a lack of confidence or ability arising from
the vocational education route followed by most residential workers. The
Authors suggest that these workers have a particular perspective on practice
to offer but do not inhabit either a role or context which would promote
academic writing and thus influence policy development. Rehr et al., (1998),
also concerned with marginalised practitioner voices, suggest that the
academic –practitioner divide in the US has arisen as a result of a split
between ‘practice wisdom’ and ‘scientific technologies’. The authors suggest
that this split should be redressed in order to enhance the quality of practice.
They (practitioners) feel further dismissed when they see their own published work ignored by academics whilst being admonished for not writing. (Rehr et al., 1998, pp87)
Tasker (1999), Berger (1990) and Kirsner and Lethenborg (1994) share the
view that writing for publication is a task which creates anxiety for practitioners
and that strategies are needed to build confidence. Tasker (1999) shares her
own experiences of writing for publication as a practitioner in the US and
31
offers practical advice such as allowing a creative and unstructured
preparatory stage which leads to producing writing. Berger (1990) identifies
problems associated with social workers getting published in the US and
promotes mentoring schemes between practitioners and academics. Along a
similar line, in Australia Kirsner and Lethenborg (1994) suggest that anxiety
about writing, together with a lack of confidence in what they have to say,
deters practitioners from publishing. The authors suggest that this can be
addressed in part by a ‘writer in residence’, or experienced writer working
alongside practitioners to help them translate their reflections into publishable
texts.
Kirk (1993) challenges the quality of academic publications written by social
work academics or practitioners and suggests (possibly optimistically) that this
problem is easily remedied. (Kirk, 1993, p. 3). Some of Kirk’s proposals
appear to rely on a common-sense approach to writing which focuses
primarily upon the surface features of writing (such as spelling, vocabulary
and punctuation). For example he advocates the use of clear writing, which
follows established guidelines for ‘good writing’, avoidance of jargon and
careful and consistent use of specialist terminology and acronyms and varying
the sentence and paragraph length. Kirk’s advice moves on, however, to
include an awareness of audience and advice on voice and the use of the first
person. Kirk suggests that in social work the use of the first person is often
appropriate and that the more conventional use of the third person can be
unhelpful as it places the reader at a distance. Kirk suggests that authors can
establish a more personal voice by drawing upon their own experience in
relation to research and by using the active rather than the passive voice (see
32
6.5) for a more extensive discussion of the use of first person singular
pronouns). In suggesting that a more personal voice may make social work
publications more accessible, Kirk appears to be encouraging a departure
from a formal, impersonal academic genre favoured by many journals. This
body of work from the US and the UK suggests, therefore, that the
participation of practitioners in journal publications is important, but that as a
result of the genre of writing required by academic journals, such participation
is being limited with negative consequences for practice and policy
development.
Witkin (2000) explores the appropriateness of the article genre for social work
writing. He distinguishes broadly between writing for the arts and humanities,
where the concern is with language as a tool for expression, analysis and
creativity, and that of science where he argues it is:
Simply a vehicle for recording the regularities of nature and the methods for reproducing those regularities. (Witkin, 2000, p. 389).
Witkin suggests that social work has generally followed a tradition of writing
prescribed by most scientific and professional journals and raises concerns
about the consequent limitations placed on professional academic writing in
social work. Billig (1994) suggests the ‘APA’ style, favoured by such journals
can unhelpfully create ‘depopulated texts’, or texts with neither authors nor
subjects, and is objective and presented as ‘neutral’, although inherently
value-laden. The APA style he refers to here is an influential set of primarily
editorial guidelines provided by the American Psychological Association.
Billig’s view of the APA genre is not universally held within social work
education. Szuchman and Thomlinson (2004), writing primarily for those
33
studying in the US, urge social work students to learn and practice the APA
genre which they suggest not only prepares them for publishing in journals but
also for writing their academic assignments and writing effectively in the
context of their practice (Szuchman and Thomlinson, 2004, p. 5). Whilst
Szuchman and Thomlinson present the APA genre as requiring formality and
avoiding bias, they do not veto the use of the first person and warn against an
over use of the passive voice (Szuchman and Thomlinson, 2004, p. 23).
Witkin offers the personal essay as an alternative to more positivist forms of
writing, suggesting that rather than a dispassionate reporting from invisible
authors, the essay is a narrative in which the authorial presence is integral to
the story being told (Witkin, 2000, p. 391). Quoting Lopate (1994) he suggests
that in the personal essay:
Personal disclosures form the basis of a relationship between authors and readers. (Lopate, 1994 quoted in Witkin, 2000, p. 390)
Goldstein (1993) also supports a greater authorial presence in social work
writing, suggesting that, as social work is concerned with ‘the person in the
situation’ (Goldstein, 1993, p. 441), scientifically orientated genres common in
academic journals (which are typically formal and abstract) can be unsuitable.
He appears to agree with Witkin in suggesting that there are elements of the
genre of the essay which provide more possibilities for social work writing. In
promoting the use of the ‘essay’ Goldstein refers to the value of narrative or
first person account as preferable to neat but depersonalised apparently
‘objective’ accounts where form dictates content and the author’s identity is
obscured, depriving the writing of context or perspective. In doing so the
narrative ‘draws together the aesthetics of the humanities and the intellect of
34
science’ (Goldstein, 1993, p. 441). Goldstein suggests that moving away from
the controlled scholarly genre of the research article may encourage more
practitioners to participate in academic writing. Despite the time separating
their publication, Heron and Murray (2004), Kirk (1993), Witkin (2000) and
Goldstein (1993) show striking consistency in their views about features of a
more facilitative approach to writing in social work to encourage publication
and express the discipline authentically. Such a genre would include space for
narrative and for the identity of both the writer and other participants in the
text to be visible. It would create a space for creativity and reflection, avoiding
formal, positivist approaches to knowledge formation.
The critical evaluation of genre, illustrated in relation to publication in
academic journals, has not taken place in relation to student academic writing
in social work. The debate presented here does, however, raise issues which
are also represented in this thesis. For example the relevance of identity
(which is the focus of chapter 3) and emotion, specifically anxiety, raised by
Berger (1990) and Kirsner and Lethenborg (1994) which is discussed in 3.8
and 8.3.2.1.
1.7 Social work education in the UK
Social work education has always been, and is still, a qualification delivered
jointly by higher education institutions and social work agencies. These
agencies have a responsibility to provide practice learning placements where
students develop their practice skills and are assessed in practice. Up until
2003, the professional qualification for social work was the Diploma in Social
Work (DipSW). Since 2003 the DipSW has been gradually replaced by a
35
degree in social work which is now the required qualification leading to
professional registration with the General Social Care Council in England and
the respective Social Care and Social Services Councils in the nations of the
UK. Students who studied the DipSW in the UK, as with the current degree in
social work, undertook a professional higher education qualification which had
common national criteria for the assessment of competence. Successful
completion of professional social work training both then and now involves
studying academic units and also assessed practice placements under the
supervision of qualified social workers. The length of these placements,
criteria for assessment and also the curriculum for the academic units are
nationally prescribed. The DipSW had two points of assessment, stage one
and two, each associated with a practice learning placement. On a full time
programme each stage would be undertaken in one academic year. Students
were required to pass ‘intermediate assessment’ at the end of stage one
before commencing the stage two courses or the final practice learning
placement. The degree in social work has adopted similar practices, although
students study over 3 years and have 2 points of ‘intermediate assessment’
which, when passed, enable them to progress. The data on which this thesis
is based was drawn from students undertaking the DipSW, but the findings
apply equally to the current degree in social work due to the similarities in the
nature of the discipline.
1.7.1 Social work students in the UK
The profile of students undertaking social work education suggests that they
are strongly representative of students described as ‘non traditional’ (Bowl,
2000; Lillis, 2001; Bowl, 2002). Based upon University and College
36
Admissions Service (UCAS) statistics on entrants to training in 2000, the
period relevant to my study, social work students are mature (over 25), more
likely to be women and more likely to have either no prior qualifications or else
vocational/access qualifications such as GNVQs, BTEC/SCOTVEC and
HNC/Ds or access to higher education awards. (University and College
Admissions Service, 2003)
1.7.1.1 Gender, age, qualifications and ethnicity
When social work entrants are compared with the national average generally
and also with two other vocationally orientated higher education courses, Law
and Teaching, marked differences in student profiles are apparent. Social
work students in 2000 had a higher representation of over 25 year olds than
trainee teachers (secondary school) and a significantly higher representation
than for law degree applicants. This imbalance was however influenced by the
fact that Diploma in Social Work students in the UK were not entitled to
embark on training before the age of 20 at the time of the study. This age
restriction was lifted with the introduction of a social work degree in 2003,
school leavers with little or no practice experience being positively
encouraged to enter social work. Statistics for 2006, however, show a
decrease of 10% in entrants aged 25 or under. Social work entrants,
therefore, are not only more likely to be mature students however; they are
also mostly women. In 2000 only 15% of all places offered on social work
programmes in the UK were offered to men. This is significantly more than
Law and Teaching (University and College Admissions Service, 2003). The
following tables illustrate the national profile of entrants to social work,
teaching and law broken down by age (Figure 3) and gender (Figure 4).
37
Social work has a significantly higher number of mature female entrants than
teaching or law. The profile of social work students in 2006 (other than in
relation to age) have not changed significantly:
Figure 3 Breakdown of entrants to training for social work, teaching and law by age 2000
Age group Social work Teaching (secondary school)
Law Average of all courses surveyed by UCAS
Under 25 47% 76% 90% 88.5%
25 and Over 53% 24% 10% 11.5%
Source: (University and College Admissions Service, 2003)
The profile of social work entrants has not changed significantly since 2000
with the exception that
Figure 4 Breakdown of entrants to training for social work, teaching and law by gender
Gender Social work Teaching (secondary school)
Law Average of all Courses surveyed by UCAS
Male 15% 39% 37% 47%
Female 85% 61% 63% 53%
Source: (University and College Admissions Service, 2003)
In terms of prior academic study, fewer social work students in 2000 began
training with A levels, Scottish highers or higher education qualifications and
were more likely to have vocational qualifications such as GNVQs,
BTEC/SCOTVEC and HNC/Ds or to have undertaken access programmes
specifically designed for mature returnees to study. The following table divides
entrants into two groups, those with A level, Scottish Highers and higher
38
education qualifications (group 1) and those with other or no qualifications
(group 2):
Figure 5 Breakdown of entrants to training for social work, teaching and law by prior qualifications
Qualification Group Social work
Teaching (secondary
school) Law
All Courses surveyed by
UCAS
1 With A level, Scottish Highers and higher education qualifications
18.4% 56.3% 81.7% 67%
2 With other or no qualifications
81.6% 43.7% 18.3% 33%
Source: (University and College Admissions Service, 2003)
Based upon statistical information from UCAS, therefore, a profile emerges of
the majority of social work students being mature women who are returning to
education via access courses or vocational qualifications. Social work
students also have a slightly higher representation of Black3 and significantly
higher representation of ‘unknown’ ethnic groups. Asian4 students are slightly
under-represented compared with the national average of all higher education
3 ‘Black’ here is used to combine the three self-selecting categories used by UCAS of black-
Caribbean, black-African and black-other.
4 ‘Asian’ here is used to combine the four self-selecting categories used by UCAS of Asian-
Indian, Asian-Pakistani, Asian-Chinese and Asian-other.
39
students. This profile matches closely that of students described as ‘non
traditional’ in terms of gender and ethnicity (see discussion in 1.2.1).
Figure 6 Breakdown of entrants to training for social work, teaching and law by self-declared ethnicity
Social work Teaching (secondary school)
Law All Courses surveyed by UCAS
White 72% 90% 71% 78%
Black 7% 3% 5% 3%
Asian 6.5% 1% 14% 10%
Other 2% 1% 2% 2%
Unknown 12.5% 5% 6% 7%
Source: (University and College Admissions Service, 2003)
1.7.1.2 Social Class
The final important category is social class. Despite the relevance of social
class to this study, the statistical data available has made it difficult to draw
any conclusions about the profile of social work students in relation to social
class. Social class is measured in the national statistics (University and
College Admissions Service, 2003) by income group. In 2000, UCAS used the
Standard Occupational Classification 1990, in assigning socio-economic
status based on the entrant's parental occupation (or the occupation of the
person contributing the highest income to the household if the applicant is
aged 21 years or over). As mature sponsored students in full time
employment, the social work students in my study had almost identical socio-
economic status as they were all employed as unqualified social workers
(apart from one participant who was a welfare rights advisor). This
40
employment / income based formula did not, however, reflect participants’
own perception of their social class origins based on interview data. Patricia,
Pamela and David, social work students whose writing I discuss in
subsequent chapters, all identified themselves as having ‘working class’
origins derived from one or both parents, a cultural marker which was
significant to them. Bernie did not specify any identification with a social class,
but described her family as originating from first generation immigrants from
Jamaica, again representing a strong social identification. Consequently, I
have not attempted to provide a statistical comparison of social work with
other disciplines in relation to social class but recognise that it is a central
feature of participants’ experiences.
Taking an overview of gender, age, qualifications, ethnicity and social class,
therefore, social work students, based on the entrants in 2000, appear to have
a strong representation of ‘non-traditional’ students, a profile which is still very
similar in 2006 (UCAS, 2007). There is a very high representation of mature
women with either no prior qualifications or vocational qualifications. In
addition, although white students still make up the clear majority, Black
students in particular are more strongly represented than on teaching or law
courses. This profile closely matches that of the participants in my study.
1.8 The focus of the study
The study on which this thesis is based has followed the writing experiences
of one tutor group of the Diploma in Social Work programme throughout a full
academic year of stage 1 of their programme. The following section outlines
the programme studied and details of sources of data used.
41
1.8.1 An outline of the social work programme studied
The programme studied was an employment-based distance-learning social
work programme which could be undertaken on a full-time or part-time basis.
In either case, students remained in employment whilst studying academic
courses in a combination of study release time and their own time. Teaching
was provided through a combination of distance learning materials distributed
to students’ homes and the support and guidance of tutors who provide face-
to-face, telephone and correspondence support. Tutors had dual roles of
mediating the course materials and assessing and commenting on students’
written assignments. In order to complete the first stage of the programme
students needed to complete two courses which will be referred to throughout
as the ‘practice learning course’ and ‘foundation course’. These courses were
taken either simultaneously or in sequential years, the foundation course
being a co- or pre-requisite for the practice learning course. The workload on
students undertaking both the foundation and practice learning courses in one
year was high, as they were studying courses earning up to 120 academic
credits (CATS) per year, whilst working full time, with a study leave allowance
of one day per week.
1.8.1.1 The practice learning course
The practice learning course was available only to students registered on the
social work programme, unlike the foundation course which has open access.
The curriculum of the practice learning course was based on the
competences laid down by the Central Council for the Education and Training
of Social Workers (CCETSW). Teaching was primarily provided via three
42
written study units, a sequence of seven obligatory 4-hour face-to-face
workshops and a compulsory period of 60 days practice. This practice
component made the practice learning course distinctive, in that practice lies
at its core and constitutes 50% of learning and assessment. During students’
period of practice learning they worked in a social work setting under the
supervision of a qualified colleague who acted as a ‘practice teacher’. The
practice teacher assessed this period of practice by providing a report which
constituted 50% of students’ summative assessment. In addition to this period
of assessed practice students undertook four pieces of written work, three
formative and one summative, which was examined. The significance of this
was that the formative work was marked and commented on by students’ own
tutors, while an independent marker, unknown to the student, assessed the
examined work. Written assessment was intended to enable the student to
demonstrate their ability to apply academic learning to practice through
analysis and reflection.
1.8.1.2 The foundation course
The foundation course is a broad based course in health and social welfare. It
can be studied as a stand-alone course leading to a certificate in health and
social welfare, but is also a component in the social work award, the
University’s named degree in Health and Social Welfare and also its pre-
registration nursing diploma. The foundation course, whilst having vocational
relevance, is an ‘open’ academic course which means that students were
permitted to enrol on a particular award or programme without being
registered and without holding entry qualifications. It aims to prepare
inexperienced students for further higher education study through the
43
introduction of study skills, but is available to anyone who has an interest in
the topic of health and social care. The teaching approach draws heavily upon
the use of case studies intended to introduce inexperienced learners to the
specialist discourses of ‘care’. The foundation course is taught via seven units
of academic study and students were invited to attend 20 hours of voluntary
tutorials spread over 8 months, usually divided into 2-hour sessions. The
course is assessed via the submission of 7 written pieces, the first of which is
formative, and the completion of a three hour unseen examination.
1.8.1.3 Key differences between the practice learning and foundation
courses
There are two key differences in the content of the practice learning course
and foundation course: the centrality of practice to teaching and assessment
and also the approach taken to teaching study skills. While the foundation
course is relevant to practice, it is essentially about developing knowledge
rather than practice skills and no actual practice is undertaken. This has
implications for the assessment of writing, as students are not required to
draw upon their own personal or practice experiences. Where practice does
appear in written assignments, it derives either from fictionalised case studies
or from students’ optional observations from their practice experience. The
practice learning course, however, requires students to provide reflective
narratives on practice and personal experiences in which they make links with
44
academic learning and professional values. University guidance on the
practice learning course differentiates it from the foundation course as follows:
While...5 [the foundation course]… develops your study skills so that you can apply knowledge to practice, ...[the practice learning course]... concentrates more on writing about practice and learning how to generate evidence of competence. It gives you opportunities to develop and demonstrate competence in relation to 26 practice requirements laid down by the Council (University publicity document)
This introduces the second important distinction between the courses. The
foundation course contains significant amounts of teaching which focuses on
developing students’ study skills, including academic writing. The practice
learning course does not contain any teaching on study skills beyond
assignment-specific briefing and generic guidance which directs students to
the foundation course for advice. There are further generic resources
available to students such as online and study skills guides.
1.8.1.4 The course materials
I had access to the full teaching materials for both the practice learning course
and the foundation course, which consisted of written teaching material, audio
recordings and set books. These provided useful background, but the main
items analysed for the purposes of my study were the written guidance notes
available for each course. A summary of these documents is provided in
Figure 7:
5 ‘…’ denotes omitted text in a quotation.
45
Figure 7: Written course guidance
Practice learning course
Purpose Written for
Programme Guide Provides an overview of the whole social work programme, including the contribution made by each of the courses. Introduces the practice learning courses in more detail and explains the role of assessment, including practice assessment
Tutor and student
Assignment Book Outlines the assessment strategy, provides the assignment tasks and the marking criteria.
Tutor and student
Tutor Guide Provides detailed advice on teaching, assessment and preparation for the face-to-face workshops
Tutor
Foundation course Purpose Written for
Introduction and study guide
Provides an overview of the course including the aims and learning outcomes. Introduces study skills, including the set study guide book and explains the role of assessment.
Tutor and student
Assignment Book Outlines the assessment strategy, provides the assignment tasks and the marking criteria.
Tutor and student
Tutor Guide Provides detailed advice on teaching, assessment and preparation for the tutorials.
Tutor
These documents provide important information for students and tutors about
the explicit expectations of students’ writing and also the foci of assessment
across the two courses. I explore these documents further in chapter 5.
1.8.1.5 The students and their texts
Students participating in the study were all drawn from one tutor group from
the Diploma in Social Work programme outlined above. The tutor group
studied comprised 16 students, 15 of whom participated in my study. Students
were asked to give permission for the release of two assignments from the
46
foundation course and one from the practice learning course. All 15 students
who participated in the study and their tutors agreed to these student texts
being copied and sent to me after assessment by the central assignment
handling office. Of the 15 participants, 6 were only undertaking the practice
learning course during the year of the study as they had successfully
undertaken the foundation course prior to my study. Of the 15 students in the
tutor group, 8 gave permission to be involved in interviews. I was not able to
expand my pool of active participants beyond these 8, due to the cost and
time involved in visiting students. The students lived and worked at a location
approximately 40 miles from my home and workplace, and I had agreed to
conduct the interviews at a time and place of each student’s choice. The
consequence of this was that each interview required 3-4 hours including
travel time and this, together with the cost of transport, placed a limitation on
how many students I could involve in my research, which I was conducting
alongside working full time.
The participants broadly reflected the national profile of social work students
in the year of study outlined above. Although the majority of the group (73%)
were women, this represented a slightly lower percentage compared with the
national average of 85%. The youngest of the students involved in the study
was 25 but all remaining participants were between 35 and 45 years. This is
not dissimilar to the national average, the slightly older profile being explained
by the fact that all students were sponsored by their employer. Sponsorship
also impacted on prior qualifications, as the employer concerned selected
students with demonstrable academic ability. For example, 25% of
participants had prior degree-level qualifications which is considerably higher
47
than the national average of 5.5%; however only 2 participants had been in
recent full or part time education and 9 of the 15 participants had
qualifications such as GCSE, access, A-level equivalent or diploma awards
rather than degrees. From the 15 participants, 2 did not provide information
about their prior educational qualifications. The following table illustrates the
group’s prior qualifications.
Figure 8 Summary of participant information: prior education
Prior Educational Experience Number of students
Degree 3
Professional qualification/degree equivalent
1
Diploma 2
Access /A level 3
Professional qualification A level equivalent
2
GCSE 2
Declined to answer 2
The ethnicity of participants broadly reflected that of the national statistics
available from University and Colleges Admission System (UCAS) in 2000, as
discussed above, with 60% of students being white, 27% Black (including
Black British and Black Caribbean) and only 7% British Asian. However, clear
comparisons with the UCAS data set are problematic partly because the
classifications used do not always match students’ self-definition and partly
48
due to the small numbers involved in my study. The following table illustrates
the ethnicity (based upon self description) and gender of the group:
Figure 9 Summary of participant information: gender and ethnicity
Student Ethnicity Gender
1 White Female
2 White Female
3 British Asian Female
4 White Female
5 White Male
6 White Female
7 Black British Female
8 White Male
9 White Female
10 White Male
11 Not known Male
12 Black British Female
13 White Female
14 Black Caribbean Female
15 Non participant Non participant
16 Black Caribbean Female
1.8.1.6 The case studies
The thesis draws upon data from all of the participants discussed above, but
for the purpose of illustrating my argument I will be presenting four case
49
studies of Pamela, David, Patricia and Bernie. I discuss case study as
methodology in 4.11.2.
I selected the 4 case study participants for a number of reasons. Firstly they
had contributed a full set of data (with the exception of Bernie who had
studied the foundation course in the preceding year). The four selected
participants also represented the diversity contained in the group with one
black Jamaican and three white students, three women and one man. Two
students had degrees (undertaken more than 10 years prior to the study), the
other two both had vocational higher education qualifications undertaken
within the previous five years. Unfortunately there were no students without
higher education qualifications who participated in the interviews. This arose
due to the very small number of students without Higher Education
qualifications who gained sponsorship. Consequently I was unable to
represent this experience in my sample. The case study students are referred
to throughout by their pseudonyms. They can be identified in Figure 9 as
follows:
4 = Pamela 8 = David 13 = Patricia 16 = Bernie
1.9 The structure of the thesis
This thesis comprises eight chapters. Following this introduction, chapter 2
will outline the relevant research literature. This broadly encompasses work
discussed above relating to academic literacy with a particular focus on
academic writing as a social practice. Attention will be paid to research
50
concerned with academic writing in practice-based disciplines broadly and
social work in particular. Chapter 3 provides a critical analysis of research
concerned with the way in which identity relates to academic writing which, to
date, has largely drawn upon sociological perspectives. This chapter includes
some proposals for developing current approaches through exploring the
potential contribution of psychosocial perspectives. Chapter 4 outlines
methods of data collection, the qualitative methodology used and including
approaches to interviewing which draw upon techniques influenced by a
psychological perspective. It also considers the methods of analysis used in
this thesis. In chapters 5, 6 and 7, I present my data. Chapter 5 aims to
explore the expectations of writing on the practice learning and foundation
courses based upon data from the course materials and associated written
guidance, tutors and students. Chapter 6 is concerned with the nature and
demands of reflective writing, undertaken primarily on the practice learning
course. Chapter 7 focuses on writer identity and explores the ways in which
writer identity influences and is played out through writing, particularly that
undertaken on the practice learning course. Chapter 8 summarises the
findings of this thesis, identifies pedagogical implications and suggests areas
of further work.
51
2. Chapter two: Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
The following review of literature aims to provide a context for investigating
academic student writing in social work through an overview of key research
on student writing. The chapter begins with a summary of the key research
relating to a socially orientated perspective on academic writing in higher
education, specifically that of academic literacies. Two particularly relevant
and related areas of research are explored in more detail, those of
disciplinarity and non-traditional students. Research drawing on an academic
literacies perspective that has specifically focused on academic writing in
practice-based higher education, such as nursing and teacher training, is
reviewed before moving on to research that has explored writing in social
work education. One of the central themes to emerge from this literature is the
place of reflective practice and reflective writing in the discipline of social
work. Research in both these areas is discussed, as is the related area of
‘risky writing’ in the context of composition studies in the US.
2.2 Academic writing
Academic writing plays a central part in higher education in the UK, forming
the primary medium through which students are assessed. In the context of a
highly selective higher education system, the ability of students to convey
their understanding through the medium of academic writing has been a basic
expectation. Concern has increasingly been expressed in the UK about the
52
quality of student writing, which Lillis suggests can be linked to both the
expanding population and widening of access to higher education (Lillis, 2001,
p. 21). This has partly come about as a result of the development of the post
1970s universities and partly a political agenda to increase the number of
graduates. Despite this concern, responses to date from higher education
institutions in the UK have primarily either been in the form of remedial
support for individual students focused through libraries or study support
centres or where student need is perceived more broadly, through study
support modules (Lea and Street, 2000; Lillis, 2001). Confidence in the
existence of a universal set of transferable skills has continued to influence
writing support in the UK where a ‘skills deficit’ model remains influential.
Such a model relies upon students supplementing ‘deficits’ in writing skills via
support offered through workbooks, toolkits, electronic skills labs and teaching
which focuses on teaching surface elements of written language such as
punctuation and spelling.
In the US, whilst there has been a long tradition of proactively teaching writing
to students across the ability and experience range, provision has also
focused on the teaching of technical skills. Targeted support for students
identified as having difficulties with writing in English grew out of the ‘basic
writing movement’, a specific kind of provision intended to meet the needs of
expanding numbers of students entering higher education in the 1960s, many
of whom used English as a second language or spoke a vernacular English;
Some of the most rudimentary questions we confronted were: How do you make standard English verb endings available to a dialect speaker? How do you teach English prepositional forms to a Spanish-language student? What are the arguments for and against ‘Black
53
English’? The English of academic papers and theses? Is standard English simply a weapon of colonization? … We were dealing not simply with dialect and syntax but with the imagery of lives, the anger and flare of urban youth - how could these be used, strengthened, without the lies of artificial polish? (Rich, 2001, p. 4)
The paper from which this quotation is taken was first published in 1973, and
illustrates those issues such as the diversity of writer experiences, access and
participation appeared to be recognised on some American university
programmes. Shaughnessy (1977) offered the term ‘basic writer’ in an attempt
to move away from the association between remedial classes and ability. She
recognised that many students had maturity and the ability to express
themselves orally which was not matched by their skills in writing within the
context of the academy. The function of basic writing in the US, therefore, was
to equip these students with the skills and confidence in writing to enable
them to participate in higher education (Rich, 2001, p. 4). Those involved in
the development of basic writing programmes suggested that with a universal
set of writing skills, students would be both socially emancipated and
linguistically prepared to participate in any field of education.
Lillis (2001), drawing upon an overview of institutional responses in Australia
and South Africa, as well as the UK and US, offers three common
characteristics of specific writing provision. Firstly, a shared focus on the text
produced by the student as the site of concern, or ‘problem’ to be fixed, rather
than exploring the nature of the task set, the nature of institutional or
disciplinary practices surrounding academic writing or indeed the behaviour of
those responding to texts. Secondly, Lillis refers to the ‘institutional claim to
transparency’, by which she means that, while the student text is made visible
54
as the source of concern, factors arising from disciplinary and institutional
practices remain both hidden and accepted as ‘given’. Thirdly, there is a belief
not only that the solution lies in the student’s production of the text, but that
correcting this is straightforwardly achieved (Lillis, 2001, p. 22). The
assumptions underpinning these three characteristics are that students’
difficulties with writing will be resolved by providing them with the ‘skills for the
job’ through either add-on study skills modules, composition classes,
attendance at a writing centre or the provision of writing skills toolkits.
According to Lillis (2001, p. 22-23), this is an unhelpful assumption.
A growing body of research has developed over the past ten years which has
questioned the helpfulness of focusing only on skill development, as
characterised by provision in the UK, US, Australia and South Africa. This
body of research has explored academic writing as a context specific activity
in which an understanding of social and interactional influences are essential
and challenges the transparency of institutional practices (Street, 1984; Lillis,
1997; Lea and Street, 1998; Horner and Lu, 1999; Baynham, 2000; Lillis,
2001).
2.2.1 Academic literacies
Baynham (1995; 2000) and Lea and Street (1998) both propose a’ three-
perspectives’ model of provision of literacy academic support. These can be
broadly represented as follows:
55
Figure 10 Models of literacy
Approaches
Models of literacy 1 2 3
Baynham Skills-based Text-based Practice-based
Approaches
Models of literacy 1 2 3
Lea and Street Study skills Academic socialization
Academic literacies
Approach 1 in Baynham (2000, p.19) and Lea and Street (2000, p. 35) refers
to an understanding of academic writing as a set of transferable, generic skills
and strategies which can be taught across the academy. This presupposes a
focus on the acquisition of surface features of language use, treating literacy
as a transparent technical skill which can be transmitted. Approach 2,
according to Baynham (2000, p.19), focuses on the discipline-specific nature
of writing tasks leading to writing support focusing on identified requirements
of specific disciplines. Lea and Street’s socialisation model (2000, p. 35)
views language in terms of ‘learning academic discourses’. In this model the
student becomes an apprentice to the culture of a specific academy and
related ways of learning and associated writing practices. Through
involvement in discourse communities, students become sufficiently familiar
with the practices to be able to participate, initially as a novice but increasingly
as a full member. For Baynham therefore, the focus is on disciplinarity, whilst
for Lea and Street it is on enculturation within the academy and discourse
communities. Baynham’s practice-based approach shares some features of
Lea and Street’s ‘academic socialisation’ in its concern with socialisation into
56
social and discursive practices, although again Baynham pitches these at the
disciplinary level rather than the institutional. Lea and Street, meanwhile,
focus on broader social practices influencing writing:
It [academic literacies] views student writing and learning as issues at the level of epistemology and identities rather than skill or socialisation. An academic literacies approach views the institutions in which academic practices take place as constituted in, and as the sites of, discourse and power.’ (Lea and Street, 2000, p. 35)
Lea and Street (2000b) suggest that the first and second approaches
identified in their model have limitations; the skills model because it
disregards the diversity and complexity of writing across disciplines and
genres, and the socialisation model because not only does it imply a
homogeneity within disciplines but it excludes issues of personhood and
identity. Lea suggests that:
Academic literacy can be viewed as a mediating domain between adult students’ wider cultural worlds and the final pieces of written work that they hand in for assessment (Lea, 1998, p. 156)
Within the UK, the academic literacies model was developed from ‘New
Literacy Studies’, represented by the work of Street (Street, 1984), Barton
(1984) and Barton and Hamilton (Barton and Hamilton 1998). This research
examined community-based literacy practices and was concerned with the
social (as opposed to the cognitive) and cultural influences on reading and
writing. Barton and Hamilton’s work, therefore, illustrates an interest in literacy
as a ‘social practice’ where literacy is conceived of as dependant upon social
context and relationships. These ideas have been applied to higher education
and in doing so challenge the skills and socialisation models with the
‘academic literacies’ model, which recognises the contested nature of
57
academic and student writing and the diverse positions and identities that
participants take up. The academic literacies approach moves away from
problematising individual students or even student sub groups, but instead
focuses upon institutional practices:
Viewing literacy from a cultural and social practice approach (rather than in terms of educational judgements about good or bad writing) and approaching meanings as contested can give us insights into the nature of academic literacy in particular and academic learning in general. (Lea and Street, 1998, p. 33)
Lea and Street (1998) suggest that the implicit nature of disciplinary culture
reinforces the power imbalance between student and tutor; power relations go
beyond this relationship as significant academic practices are dictated at an
institutional level:
The institutions within which tutors and students write defines the conventions and boundaries of their writing practices, through its procedures and regulations (definitions of plagiarism, requirements of modularity and assessment procedures and regulations.), whatever individual tutors and students may believe themselves to be as writers and whatever autonomy and distinctiveness their disciplines may assert. (Lea and Street, 1998, p.169)
Lea and Street (1998; 2000) therefore join the challenge to the traditional view
of language as being a transparent code, which can be learnt, applied and re-
applied, in different contexts. Thus, academic literacies moves literacy studies
from a common sense view of ‘good writing’ to recognising the significance of
individual contextualised writing acts where the importance of both writer and
‘addressee’ are acknowledged. The term ‘addressee’ derives from the
concept of addressivity, discussed by Lillis (2001), drawing upon the work of
Bakhtin (1981). Lillis suggests that:
58
At its most straightforward, it [addressivity] signals that utterances, spoken or written, are addressed to someone, and thus foregrounds the ways in which this addressivity contributes to the shaping of what will be said or written. (Lillis, 2001, p. 43)
The addressee, therefore, is the person who the writer imagines or intends a
text to be read by and the concept of addressivity suggests that the ways in
which texts are created are influenced by an awareness of the addressee.
This focus on the relationship between the writer and reader as individuals
‘interacting’ in the creation of texts is significant to this thesis because of the
potential contribution of a psychosocial approach in helping us understand the
nature of this interaction, particularly due to the part played by the imagination
of the writer. Psychoanalysis introduces ways of thinking about the behaviours
and experiences of writers (including interaction with readers) which go
beyond the purely social, for example introducing the concepts of emotion and
unconscious motivations (see 3.8.4).
Two themes arise from the body of work outlined above, along with research
emanating from the US, which are particularly relevant to this thesis: firstly the
impact of disciplinary differences on student writing within higher education
programmes, particularly those leading to professional or vocational awards,
and secondly the issue of identity and personhood. The next section
addresses disciplinarity, before moving on to consider a particular aspect of
personhood in the form of the non-traditional student.
2.2.2 Disciplinarity
This thesis is concerned with student writing in the specific context of the
discipline of social work. Debates on disciplinarity are of relevance due to the
59
broad disciplinary base of social work, drawing upon sociology, psychology,
social policy and evolving discourses of care. The work of researchers such
as Bazerman and Prior (Bazerman 1981; Bazerman 1988; Prior 1998;
Bazerman and Prior 2004), and Horner and Lu (Horner and Lu 1999) have
played an important role in opening up the debate about the nature and
teaching of student writing. This included identifying and exploring the
implications of diverse cross-disciplinary academic writing conventions and
examining writing acts as social practices, or as communication processes
which are embedded in social contexts, interactions and relationships.
Bazerman’s (1981) major contribution to literacy has been to put the context
of writing on the map. Horner and Lu explore the ways in which texts convey
knowledge, and suggests that texts are not ‘empty-vessels’ (Horner and Lu
1999 p. 367) carrying knowledge, but rather that text- and knowledge- making
are interdependent and that understanding any text requires an appreciation
of the influence of context. In Bazerman and Prior (2004) Prior provides a
model for understanding the influence of context through an influential four
dimensional model:
The scripts are examined in relationship to four contexts; the object under study, the literature of the field, the anticipated audience and the author’s own self’. (Bazerman and Prior, 2004, p. 362)
The work of Prior (1998), based on ethnographic studies of writing in
academic contexts, focuses on disciplinarity and this four-context model
opens up possibilities for exploring the meaning and intentions of the author
as evidenced in the text. In highlighting the diversity and situated nature of
literate activities across disciplines, he also suggests that such practices are
60
fluid, both influenced by and influencing writers participating in them. At the
same time writers are frequently also participating in non-heterogeneous
disciplines or indeed working across disciplines and the intersubjectivity
resulting from these practices also contributes to the fluidity of disciplinary
conventions. This is particularly the case with student writers in social work, a
discipline which draws upon a range of disciplines and forms of writing with
various conventions, as discussed further in 2.3.1.
Lea (1998) draws upon Bazerman’s suggestion that written texts reflect
disciplinary discourses and also construct them. This arises because writers
make choices in their writing which result in specific meanings, thereby
contributing to constructing knowledge. Lea uses this concept of writer choice
to consider the ways in which adult learners also bring knowledge and
experience with them into their writing, negotiating Bazerman and Prior’s four
contexts, identified above in this section of the object of study, relevant
literature, the anticipated audience and author’s own self (Lea, 1998).
In their research based on interviews with students and academic staff, Lea
and Street (1998) identify ‘course switching’ as a common feature of study,
particularly in year one. Lea and Street are here borrowing the term
‘switching’ from the concept of ‘code-switching’ (Gumperz, 1982) cited in Lea
and Street (2000, p. 38) to indicate a speaker or writer’s movement between
languages or dialects. In this context the movement is between disciplinary
writing conventions. Courses they studied frequently included elements from
different disciplines requiring students to arrive at their own personal
interpretations of writing requirements. The views of academic staff in Lea and
61
Street’s research illustrated that they retained expectations of texts based
upon their own discipline; this resulted in divergent expectations across tutors
not only in one institution but also across courses. Lea and Street (1998),
drawing on the work of Bazerman, suggest that academic staff in their study
were strongly influenced in their expectations of student writing by their own
disciplinary backgrounds and that dissonance arising from any divergence
from these expectations was frequently expressed in criticism of ‘surface
features of students’ texts. Here surface features refer to spelling,
punctuation, handwriting or grammatical features such as concord. Such
dissonance, and consequent criticism, was more common on modular or
multi-disciplinary courses, particularly where the assessment strategy
included students undertaking diverse writing tasks such as communicating
with non-specialist audiences or writing tasks which related specifically to a
professional task. The consequence of this disciplinary orientation was that:
…underlying, often disciplinary, assumptions about the nature of knowledge affected the meaning given to the terms ‘structure’ and ‘argument’… elements of successful student writing are in essence related to particular ways of constructing the world, and not a set of generic writing skills as the study skills model would suggest. (Lea and Street, 2000b, p. 39)
This lack of clarity in relation to writing requirements resulted in students
finding it very difficult to write across disciplines and writing tasks. Advice from
tutors was conflictual and inconsistent resulting in students attempting to stick
closely to disciplinary conventions where they were familiar or guessing at
what they thought assessors required. The high proportion of social work
students who reflect the profile of non-traditional students make this research
particularly pertinent to my thesis.
62
2.2.3 Non-traditional students
The concept of ‘mystery’ in relation to writing conventions is developed in
research such as that of Horner and Lu (1999) in their work on basic writing
and that of Lillis (1997; 2001), whose work is particularly concerned with non-
traditional students. Lillis (2001) suggests that non-traditional student writers
are particularly disadvantaged in accessing implicit discoursal writing cultures
and that this consequently affects their participation in academic writing. As
noted above, an awareness of the particular literacy needs of students with
English as a second language or those who do speak non-standard English
was recognised with the expansion of the higher education population in the
US from the 1960s onwards (Halasek and Highberg, 2001). More recent
research in the UK has focused on the needs of non-traditional students not
only in the context of academic writing (Lillis, 1997; Lillis, 2001; Lillis and
Turner, 2001) but also in the broader context of the culture of higher
education (Bowl, 2000; Bowl, 2002). This work suggests that it is not only
linguistic differences which create barriers to participation. Students who differ
in terms of age, culture and ethnicity from what has been considered to be the
traditional higher education student can experience barriers to participation
which relate to their identity and the cultural norms of higher education
institutions.
In the context of academic writing, Lillis suggests that, in addition to any
cultural or linguistic differences, non-traditional students may not have had the
opportunity to experience the gradual familiarisation with academic writing
offered to those students who have been able to progress systematically
through the educational system, acquiring incremental familiarisation with
63
writing skills. Where familiarity with academic writing conventions is missing or
limited, students are further disadvantaged by the implicit nature of specific
writing conventions, such as ‘essayist literacy’. Lillis (1997) identifies particular
difficulties with what she calls ‘essayist literacy’. She identifies that student
writing frequently labelled as an ‘essay’ can disguise complex and implicit
expectations of students’ writing which has the effect of constraining students’
meaning making. The essay, in fact, represents a very particular way of
constructing knowledge which, whilst frequently presented as transparent, is
both implicit and complex.
Unfortunately, explicit teaching and exploration of conventions is not common practice, one of the reasons being that within the institution, conventions continue to be viewed as appropriate and unproblematic, as ‘common sense’. (Lillis, 1997, p. 186)
Lillis also highlights the importance of the power dimension in student writing,
which is particularly pertinent to non-traditional students and is also discussed
in relation to Lea’s research above (Lea, 1998). Lillis suggests that the sense
of exclusion experienced by some students goes further than struggling to
attain a particular genre. The power imbalance experienced by the non-
traditional students in her research compounded their frustration, as they felt
unable to question or challenge the implicit expectations against which they
were being assessed. Through exploring the experiences of student writers,
Lillis (2001) expresses concern about the ways in which student identities are
reflected in academic writing. She suggests that academic writing
conventions, by their implicit nature, regulate or influence students’ identities
and expressions of self by valuing particular ways of being in their writing.
Drawing on her research data Lillis writes:
64
All student-writers point to problems in drawing on their habits of meaning within the institutional context of HE…Nadia feels that by using more formal wordings she acquires a new social status…Mary likes and wants some new words, both she and Sara point to the enforced need to imagine themselves and their words as white in order to disguise their selves, their Black, bilingual selves in their academic writing. Both feel that the risk of revealing their selves in their writing is too great, both in terms of tutor marks and of how they will be viewed. (Lillis, 2001, p.105)
Lillis (2001, p. 38-9) draws upon Gee (1990) to suggest that the identity of the
author is fictionalised in essayist literacy through a process of adherence to a
set of regulatory practices which privilege certain social groups. One
consequence of essayist literacy practices, therefore, is that the writers are
inhibited from presenting culturally specific aspects of their identity in
academic writing. From Lillis’s (2001) data, students’ perception of their
cultural ‘difference’ from their tutors and the academic institution seemed to
result in writers editing out experiences or opinions which they felt might be
‘inappropriate’ in their academic student role.
…If they’re (tutors) asking specifically for my experiences and what I feel, then that’s fine. But if not, then you have to put yourself away from that, you know, basically write what they want you to write. (from extract 9 of taped discussion on students’ scripts, (Lillis, 1997: 195)
Lillis’s research, therefore, raises important issues, not only about non-
traditional students, but also more broadly in relation to identity and writing.
This has particular relevance to this study not only because of my focus on
writer identity but also due to the particular profile of social work students as
‘necessarily’ non-traditional, as discussed in 1.7 and 2.2.3.
65
2.3 Literacy and Writing Practices
I have referred above to the concept of ‘social’ and more specifically ‘literacy’
practices’ in relation to student writing. Ivanič (1997), drawing on Baynham
(1995) uses the term ‘literacy practices’ to mark a specific interest in those
culturally embedded activities and behaviours associated with literacy within a
wider concept of social practices, which she defines as:
Ways of acting in and responding to life situations (Ivanič, 1998, p. 65)
Both ‘social’ and ‘literacy’ practices are terms which are firmly socially
orientated, recognising the ways in which particular ways of acting are
culturally shaped and privileged as a result of discoursally constructed power
dynamics, or subject positioning. Lea and Street (1998) refer to ‘writing
practices’ in addition to using the term literacy practices. In Lea’s discussion
of literacy practices she makes specific reference to the kinds of relationships
between tutor and students (Lea and Street, 2000, p. 70) which, although
implied by Ivanič in the concept of social context, was not explicitly stated.
Lillis (2001, p. 29) offers three levels of interpretations of the concept of
literacy practices. Firstly, as used by Lea, Stierer and Ivanič, practice refers to
the idea that specific usages of texts are intrinsically bound up with the
material and social context in which they take place. Her second usage draws
upon the concept of ‘habitus’ (Bourdieu, 1991) and suggests that practices
involved with the production of texts become embedded in the unconscious,
implicit, everyday actions shared within social groups or institutions. The third
interpretation links reading and writing, embedding them both in social
66
structures which also mould them. From these interpretations stem two
distinct but related uses of the concept of practice. Firstly it relates to
individual writing acts and secondly it relates to those ways of being and doing
which are common and frequently implicit or unconscious. This appears to be
a helpful distinction in that the individual writing ‘practice’ of one writer may
also be influenced by those common writing ‘practices’ of a community or
discoursal group.
Prior (1998) also refers specifically to ‘writing as practice’ and broadens still
the conceptualisation of ‘practice’. Firstly he associates a range of activities
with the production of a text, including reading, thinking, planning, interacting
with other people and texts, including seeking feedback. In describing the
‘process’ of writing, Prior does not break down these activities into stages, but
instead suggests that:
Writing moves forward (and backward) in fits and starts, with pauses and flurries, discontinuities and conflicts. (Prior, 1998, p. 171)
Prior adds the psychological concept of emotion to the process of writing,
reminding us that:
‘Many of these behaviours seem related to the writing, to managing emotions as well as the creative process’ (Bazerman and Prior, 2004, p. 171) [my emphasis].
Concepts including the circularity of the actions involved in writing practice
(Prior 1988), the importance of human interaction, in addition to practices
being located in a discoursally constructed social world (Lea and Street, 2000;
Prior, 1988) and the recognition of emotion (Bazerman, 2004) are particularly
67
significant to this thesis. I will be taking these three concepts forward in my
own use of the term writing practices.
2.3.1 Academic writing in practice-based higher education
Research drawing on a social practices approach to academic writing has
included work specifically concerned with writing in practice-based higher
education, both graduate and post-graduate. Three important features
distinguish these particular disciplinary fields. Firstly they share a requirement
for students to undertake assessed practice alongside academic learning.
Secondly they lead to a professional qualification with a licence to practice
and thirdly they involve heavily externally prescribed curricula often drawing
upon a range of disciplinary discourses. Such practice-based disciplines
include teaching, nursing and social work. Writing undertaken on such
programmes of study pose particular challenges to students, and as was
identified in chapter 1 for academics and practitioners writing within these
disciplines in academic journals. The writing undertaken on practice-based
courses also has the potential to be particularly complex in that it draws on
both academic and practice-based learning, which not only involves the use of
a range of discourses but positions the student in different identities, most
obviously as ‘student’ and ‘professional’.
Baynham (1995), focusing on nurse education, suggests that new or
emergent disciplines in higher education, such as nurse education, require
students to navigate a greater range and diversity of disciplines through their
writing than single discipline subjects:
68
So pity the poor nursing student, who is required to write at times like a sociologist, at others like a philosopher, yet again like a scientist and finally as a reflective practitioner. (Baynham, 2000, p. 17)
He further suggests that the disciplinary differences impact not only on
content or form but also on the way in which knowledge is conceptualised.
This exposes a conflict within nursing between positivist positions represented
by clinical subjects and interpretative positions represented by ethical subjects
(Baynham, 2000, p. 21). Other conflicts include practical versus theoretical
knowledge and practice-based versus professionalised learning, an issue
explored by Scott (2000) and discussed below in this section. Nurse
education, in common with other practice-based education, attempts to weave
a path between these contrasting disciplines to enable student nurses to write
as nurses, rather than as ‘ethical scientists’ or ‘practical theorists’. Baynham
suggests that students authorize (or provide authority for) their writing through
the use of authoritative texts cited in their own words but also through the use
of practice-based experience (for further discussion of authority in practice
based student writing, see 6.5). The professional nature of the course he
studied meant that students relying on practice-based experience were not
necessarily disadvantaged and that highly successful students were those
who could draw both together. I will return to this balance between academic
and practice-based writing skills in chapter 5.5.2.
Stierer’s research (2000a; 2000b) was undertaken with qualified teachers
studying for a master’s qualification in education. This work is concerned with
the ways in which student writers are positioned through both the guidance
and conventions of writing and the feedback on assignments. The component
69
courses of this award demonstrated a diversity of discourses and consequent
expectations of student writing, as suggested by Lea and Street (1998).
Stierer found that the discourses drawn upon by the course did not reflect any
kind of ‘professional’ role and, despite the priorities of students, did not heavily
value practice experience. Instead traditional academic discipline-based
discourses (such as sociology and psychology) were valued in writing over
professional discourses. According to Stierer, this inhibited the potential for
the development of an integrated professionally orientated academic
discourse which might more closely reflect the students’ priorities.
Scott’s research (2000), referred to above, is also concerned with the writing
of postgraduate trainee teachers for whom the development of skills in
reflective practice is central to their training. Her research suggests (in
common with Stierer) that some students appeared to privilege practice
experience in their writing above more traditional academic discourses, and
this raised a concern for Scott. The emphasis on reflection, and the way in
which this has been translated into written assignments, has, according to
Scott, been influenced by the partnership of higher education institutions and
schools (or practice learning environments) in teacher training. In the
examples of student writing analysed by Scott, she suggests that writers took
different approaches to including practice in their writing and that, based on
the essays analysed, students’ writing showed evidence of being instrumental
and overly influenced by the practice environment of the school. Scott,
drawing on Bernstein (1996), proposes that the concept of ‘performance’ (or
the demonstration of specialized knowledge and skills resulting from detailed
guidance) risks supplanting ‘competence’ (the holistic consequence of
70
scholarly learning) in postgraduate teacher training. Scott raises the concern
that ‘beginning teachers’ are limiting their participation in scholarly debates as
independent agents which in turn affects their identity as a student. Scott
concludes that whilst a performance model risks portraying writing as over
simplified transferable skills, competence can equally be seen as unteachable
and suggests that, particularly for those students who move between
academic and practice-based learning, there is a need to identify a middle
road:
… such an approach could accommodate attention to the particularities of linguistic choice within the competing discourses of the workplace and the university. (Scott, 2000, p. 124).
Hoadley-Maidment (2000), focusing on students studying health and social
care, identified the difficulty experienced by students in combining narratives
of personal or practice experiences with academic discourses based upon
argumentation. Tutors in her study had expectations that students would
demonstrate the ability not only to use argument and narrative, but also to
combine them in one assignment. Based on her study, Hoadley-Maidment
suggests that the skills required to achieve this synthesis involve the high-
order cognitive skills of analysis and critical reflection (Hoadley-Maidment,
2000, p.174). It is interesting to note that Hoadley-Maidment identifies the
expectation of these skills at level 1 of health and social care qualifications,
whilst Scott illustrates very similar writing tasks being pitched as evidence of
‘postgraduateness’. Hoadley-Maidement’s work is of particular interest as she
identifies very similar challenges faced by students and assessors in relation
71
to combining experience and academic argument, an issue discussed in more
depth in 5.5.2.
2.4 Student writing in social work in the US
Although research interest relating specifically to student social work writing in
the UK is very limited, there is a small body of work in the US which can be
broadly divided into three categories. Firstly, work concerned with using
writing as a tool for learning (Germain, 1991; Baker and Nelson, 1992; Mazza,
1999), secondly research into the use of expressive writing and poetry to
develop practice skills such as empathy (Furman, 2003; Furman, 2005) or as
a therapeutic tool (Chan, 2003). Thirdly some attention has been paid to the
development of students’ competence in academic writing skills in the context
of social work (Simon and Soven, 1989; Waller, 1996; Waller, 2000; Watson,
2002).
Falk and Ross (2001) survey the diversity of written assignments required of
students studying for the baccalaureate in social work in the US. The authors
foreground the centrality of writing skills to social work both in the context of
practice itself and the dissemination of best practice through academic
journals. Falk and Ross’ study identifies nine purposes of writing and links
these with the kinds of assignments used, as well as the writing and other
social work skills each addresses. Falk and Ross’s tabular summary of their
findings is reproduced in Figure 11:
72
Figure 11 Purposes of writing in social work education
Purposes of Writing
Assignments to practice social work writing
Writing skill being addressed
Other social work skill being addressed
1 To understand and care for the self
Reflective writing; Personal journal: free writing,
Getting started, overcoming barriers, writing freely
Self-knowledge
2 To communicate the self to others
Professional journal Writing coherently, mechanics
Expressing the professional self
3 To understand the perspective of others
Writing in the voice of a client
Writing from a consistent point of view
Empathy, ability to envision a client’s world view
4 To describe Description of clients, agency, community, social work transactions
Making writing come to life, creating accurate, detailed representations
Observational skills, ability to recognise bias, communication of professional information
5 To analyze Psychosocial assessment, process recording, term papers
Organization, using logical progression of ideas
Critical thinking skills: Drawing inferences from descriptive information
6 To be accountable Agency documentation: Treatment plans, progress notes, treatment summaries
Clarity, focus, consciousness of diverse perspectives and requirements of potential readers
Analytic reasoning skills: Ability to formulate appropriate specific time-framed, measurable goals and objectives
7 To reach and persuade diverse audiences
Proposals, testimony, letters to the editor, etc
Adapting genre and terminology to audience
Communication skills, including cross cultural communication, working with diversity
8 To participate in knowledge-building
Reading journal articles, writing articles, research
Writing to share practice discoveries, writing for publication
Analytic reasoning skills, clear succinct communication of ideas, conceptualisation of professional practice
9 To represent the profession to society
Any and all assignments
Using ‘the social work voice’.
Ability to communicate social work ethics, world views, practice models
Adapted from Falk and Ross, 2001, p. 128.
73
This table illustrates well the range of writing required of social work students,
and in particular highlights the relevance of identity. I have added numbering
to assist in identifying the incidences of identity. These include the ability to
understand (1) and communicate (2) the ’self’ which is distinguished from the
requirement to portray both the professional self (7 and 9) and the self as a
member of an academic discourse community (7 and 8). Falk and Ross
suggest that reflective writing through non-assessed journals can:
Develop enhanced self-knowledge while generating ideas about outer phenomena…It can relieve inner tensions by permitting the social worker to channel feelings, reactions and experiences into self discovery and other kinds of learning. (Falk and Ross, 2001, p. 129)
Reflective writing in this context is placed outside of assessed academic
assignments and represented as both a therapeutic and learning tool which
can assist students in developing writing skills through building confidence
and practice skills through reflections drawing together external knowledge
and internal experience. I return to this theme of reflective writing as a non-
assessed developmental learning tool in 2.5.2.
Germain (1991) and Baker and Nelson (1992) researched learning journals
specifically, exploring the benefits for student social workers. Germain,
explores the relative benefits of journal writing compared with alternative
forms of written assessment as a tool to develop both writing and analytical
skills, whilst Baker and Nelson are concerned with using journals to develop
deeper personal reflection. Germain’s study was undertaken within the
researcher’s institution through an evaluated pilot scheme, which involved
students participating and providing brief feedback on their experience of
using journals. Although the research findings indicated that some students
74
did not want to take the risk of writing about personal (as opposed to practice)
experiences, Germain suggests that those that did so in her study indicated
that they felt that they had learnt more from the exercise. Germain concludes
that the use of the journal demanded a high level of commitment from both
student and tutor, who read and commented on journal entries periodically
through the course. She suggests that:
… the journal serves as the connector of personal self to professional self as well as the connector of theory to practice issues. (Germain, 1991, p.12).
Feedback from students in Germain’s study highlights both the personal
sensitivity involved in assessed journal writing and the consequent reluctance
of some students to engage in it. Germain does not suggest why such
personal writing may be difficult or why it might be more difficult for some
students than others.
Baker and Nelson (1992) also explore the benefits of journal writing in social
work education. The authors discuss their experience of using journal writing
with social work students to enable them to reflect upon their personal
experiences of family. The purpose of this aspect of training was to facilitate
students’ awareness of their own family histories and, where necessary,
resolve problematic family experiences so that they could work more
effectively with service users. As with Germain, the journals were used to
draw together personal, experiential reflections and discussion of new
learning. Students were encouraged to write in the first person using an
‘informal genre’ more typical of spoken rather than written language. The
authors highlight the reluctance and anxiety expressed by some students in
75
engaging in this form of writing, particularly in relation to discussing values
and beliefs and disclosing ‘private’ information about their families. Students
were encouraged to overcome this ‘resistance’ and use the experience as a
method for empathising with the parallel resistance of service users. The
authors also suggest that sensitivity is needed in the assessment of journals,
with instructors entering a non-threatening dialogue by responding personally
and positively to selected entries (Germain, 1991, p. 54) and employing a
grading system which gave credit for the submission of a specified minimum
number of journal entries in addition to a focus on values and beliefs rather
than on knowledge. Both of these studies, therefore, identified a level of
anxiety or resistance to undertaking personal writing demonstrated by some
students. The attitudes and feelings of students towards such personal writing
is one area which will be followed up as an important theme in this thesis (see
6.4 and chapter 7).
Simon and Soven (1989) and Waller (1996; 2000) share a concern about the
quality of social work student writing and their work again draws attention to
the importance of self in academic writing. Simon and Soven suggest that
support from writing centres alone will not fully address the need identified. In
their study, they piloted and evaluated the use of learning journals with
students early in their studies, which encouraged them to draw together
reflections on practice, self-knowledge and theory. This journal was
commented on periodically by the instructor but was not graded. For two
further assignments the instructions on established writing tasks were
modified to clarify the audience and purpose of the writing. For more
advanced students, a ‘double entry journal’ was used. This represented a
76
note book in which the pages were divided into two columns, one for
contemporaneous observations during class and the other for interpretations
completed after a time lag which allowed an opportunity for reflection on the
observations. This journal was also considered a learning tool and was
therefore not graded. Based upon this study, Simon and Soven suggest that
the association of writing tasks with professional development generally, and
specifically with constructing views of society helped to motivate students.
Academic writing therefore became more relevant and embedded in a
process of thinking, feedback and learning.
Despite Simon and Soven’s concern about the quality of social work student
writing, it was not until 1996 that Waller published a study responding to their
concerns, followed up by a second paper in 2000. Through her study, Waller
(1996) identified four main areas of difficulty for her social work students in
relation to writing, none of which directly relates to reflective writing. Firstly
she found that assessed writing was not treated as developmental, so
students did not work on improving texts, secondly no specific teaching was
provided on writing, thirdly writing often resulted in ‘patchwork texts’
constituted by the writer stitching together extracts from other texts but in
which an authoritative voice is missing. Waller suggests that this stemmed
from students’ lack of confidence in their own voices, both in speaking and in
writing. Fourthly Waller suggests that students perceived writing as an innate
skill possessed by bright students, not as something developmental which all
students had to acquire and which was intrinsic to learning. As a response to
these concerns, Waller developed and evaluated a model of teaching writing
through the students undertaking short ‘reflections’ based on texts that they
77
had read. These papers took a position, which was discussed and justified in
group discussions at the end of each weekly class and then re-drafted. A final
paper was submitted at the end of the semester based upon the best two
papers from each student’s work. In her evaluation, Waller (1996) emphasises
the benefits of free writing and peer review as essential components of
developing writing skills. She recommends an assessment strategy that
allows for such free writing and peer review, in that it should be staged, non-
assessed but with instructor feedback and, after revisions, leading towards a
final assessed piece. Waller also provides discussion of supportive tutor
feedback based upon the concept of responding to rather than correcting
texts. This involves tutors taking care over the focus, nature and extent of
feedback and also suggesting transmittal notes undertaken by the student (or
notes explaining their thoughts behind their text) to enable the tutor to focus
comment and set up dialogue. Through these recommendations, although not
directly stated, Waller appears to be recognising the personal nature of social
work students’ writing and the consequent need for sensitive and responsive
feedback. Her proposals share much with those of Berman in his discussion
of personal or ‘expressionist’ writing (Berman, 2001, p. 24) (discussed below
in 2.6) in which students write about personal experiences.
2.5 Student writing in social work: the UK
context
In the UK research on academic writing in social work has been sparse, with
little research focusing specifically on the writing undertaken by student social
78
workers. Heron and Murray (2004), as outlined above in 1.6, contribute a
challenging analysis of why particular practitioners may be excluded from
publishing. Although this research does not relate specifically to the writing of
social work students, it contains some relevant discussion about the
differences in writing developed through academic and vocational
professional training, suggesting that vocational qualifications taken by, for
example, residential care workers, do not prepare them for writing academic
papers.
Watson (2002) represents an institutional response to a problem experienced
by students undertaking a particular assignment in one institution in the East
of England. Lecturing staff observed that the pass rate was particularly low in
one assignment, an ‘integrated assignment’ which was an example of
assessed writing complying with the CCETSW (1996a) requirement for
reflection discussed in 1.2.1. In this extended piece of writing, students drew
together analysis and reflections of theory, practice and self. The
programme’s concerns about students’ success rate in the integrated
assignment led to the publication of a detailed guide for students and
subsequently a text book offering general advice on writing such assignments
(Watson, 2002). Watson identifies some of the features of practice-based
writing which commonly cause difficulties, such as the requirement to draw
together theory and reflection upon students’ own practice. A chapter
representing the experiences of students suggests that there were specific
expectations of the integrated assignment which contradicted the students’
previous experiences of academic writing and contained implicit expectations
relating to the importance of reflection. Students who had undertaken the
79
‘integrated assignment’ identified the tension between adhering to perceived
academic conventions and including reflection, commenting that:
In completing the integrated assignment, our experiences were quite different. One assignment passed on first submission, and one failed. While the markers acknowledged that the failing assignment was ‘academic work of a high standard’, it failed because it did not meet the assessment criteria – … because there was insufficient evidence of reflection on practice incorporated into the work. (Watson, 2002, p. 200)
Watson, therefore makes an important contribution, not only in flagging up
concerns within the UK about social work writing, but also in highlighting a
particular difficulty. Watson’s work suggests a response based upon providing
students with detailed guidance to a specific writing task but, unlike research
in the US, does not also emphasise the importance of developing skills
through writing and feedback within a particular genre.
Beyond the work of Heron and Murray (2004) and Watson (2002), there has
been no published research in the UK problematising the nature of social
work writing or exploring the student experience of participating in it. However
research centring on other practice-based disciplines and from the broader
context of academic writing discussed above suggests that there are
important issues to explore. One such issue is the way in which the
requirements to reflect upon practice in the context of academic learning
affect institutional expectations of student writing.
2.5.1 Reflective practice in social work education
A common theme arising from the literature reviewed above and concerned
with academic writing in social work education, is the importance of students
80
drawing together academic learning and practice, or in other words
embedding learning in real experiences through reflection. Reflective learning
has an established place within social work education and there is abundant
literature aimed at both social work educators and students on the subject
(Martyn, 2000; Gould and Baldwin, 2004). Reflective practice has a similarly
high profile in the related professional disciplines of teaching and nursing. The
place of reflection was established as a core aspect of assessment in social
work education through the Central Council for Education and Training in
Social Work (CCETSW) requirement that students demonstrate that they
have …reflected upon and critically analysed their practice (CCETSW, 1995).
The national occupational standards for the social work degree, set by the
Qualifications Assurance Agency in Higher Education, reflect the CCETSW
requirement. Whilst being less prescriptive about the method of assessment,
the QAA subject benchmark includes ‘reflection on performance’ as a key
element of learning, defined as:
… a process in which a student reflects on past experience, recent performance, and feedback, and applies this information to the process of integrating awareness (including awareness of the impact of self on others) and new understanding, leading to improved performance. (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 2000) [my emphasis].
The importance of reflection became firmly established in social work
pedagogy through the influence of authors such as Kolb (1970), SchÖn (1989)
and Eraut (1994) but self-reflection, in fact, has much deeper roots in the
profession. Reflective practice, in all but name, has been a cornerstone of
social work education since its early psychoanalytic roots. It can be traced
back to the psychoanalytic origins of social work in the UK, which have had
81
enduring influences on the discourses which surround practice and also the
pedagogies of social work. This close connection arose through the
understanding and use of the concept of ‘self’ which is integral to practice
learning. Ruch (2002) suggests that the degree of interest in reflective
practice is indicative of the profession’s reclaiming of the relevance of the self
in practice in the context of increasing complexity of the professional task and
moves towards competency methods of assessment and managerialism:
The pivotal characteristic of reflective practice is its recognition of the breadth of knowledge accessible to an individual and in particular the attention it pays to the non-rational as well as the rational responses to experiences. (Ruch, 2002, p. 203) [my emphasis].
By ‘non-rational’ Ruch is specifically referring to the sometimes unconscious
types of knowing and experience, including emotion, which are the concern of
psychoanalytic theory. This non-rational aspect of reflective practice is a form
of knowledge not commonly addressed in academic learning and one which
could be seen as an anathema to researchers working within a positivist
frame. But, while there is considerable literature concerned with developing
student practitioner’s skills in reflective practice, few have focused on the
consequent implications for academic writing, Boud (1999) being a notable
exception (see 2.5.2 below).
Whilst social work in the UK as elsewhere, inevitably operates in a highly
politicised environment and practice is influenced and guided by
organisational change, shadows of its psychoanalytic foundations remain
interwoven through its pedagogy. Up to the early 1980s, psychoanalytic
perspectives in social work education were not only important as influences
on casework, but also influenced the nature of social work education:
82
Self-knowledge has been stressed as a desirable objective in social work education for several decades…In psychoanalysis the self-knowledge of the analyst, acquired through his own analysis, is essential. A weaker version of this was adopted for social work. (Timms, 1977, p. 4) [my emphasis].
This ‘weaker version’ could be seen on qualifying courses in the form of
modules such as ‘Use of Self’ (University of Bristol, 1986-7) which
encouraged students to develop self awareness and an ‘internal supervisor’ in
post-qualification practice. Although the curriculum no longer prescribes such
modules, the development of skills in self-awareness and reflection continue
to be required through reflective assignments outlined above in 1.2.1.
(CCETSW, 1996a).
2.5.2 Reflective writing
Despite extensive interest in reflective practice (Boud et al., 1985; Yelloly and
Henkel, 1995; Gould and Taylor, 1996; Payne, 1990; Martyn, 2000; Taylor
and White, 2000; Boud and Solomon, 2001; Watson, 2002; Bolton, 2003), and
warnings from Boud (1999) about the complexities of assessing reflective
learning, there has been less research focusing on the nature and purpose of
reflective writing in the context of written academic assessment. Reflective
writing, where visible at all in the literature, appears either in the context of
learning journals which may not be assessed directly (Baker and Nelson
1992; Janks, 1999; Moon, 1999b; Crème, 2000; Thorpe, 2004; Crème, 2005)
or within a broader discussion of developing students’ skills in reflective
practice, with the writing being a tool to achieve this (Boud et al., 1985; Boud,
1999; Moon, 1999a; Moon, 2002; Moon, 2004; Oldham and Henderson,
2004).
83
Boud (1999), however, questions the value and integrity of assessing
reflective practice at all. He suggests that professions favour the teaching of
reflective skills as they support the concept of professional self-regulation, but
that there are dangers in associating assessment and reflection. It is
important to recognise that there is a distinction between the assessment of
students’ developing professional skills of reflective practice through
academic writing and the merging of assessment and reflection through self-
assessment. Boud suggests that conflating assessment and reflection is
unhelpful as there are inherent contradictions in the nature of reflection and
the nature of assessment:
Assessment involves putting forward one’s best work…Reflection, on the other hand, is about exploration, understanding, questioning, probing discrepancies and so on. There is always a danger that assessment will obliterate the very practices of reflection with courses aim to promote. (Boud, 1999, p. 127).
According to Boud (1999) therefore, assessment which incorporates a
judgement on students’ developing ability to reflect on their practice or indeed
professional development, therefore should both avoid penalising students for
exposing practice which is not ‘their best’, whilst providing clear guidance as
to what is expected in terms of ‘exploration, understanding, questioning,
probing discrepancies’. Boud (1999) also emphases the importance of taking
account of the learning context when setting up reflection tasks and identifies
some specific barriers to effective reflection which include intellectualising
reflection, allowing or failing to protect students from making inappropriate
disclosures and most significantly placing reflection in the context of writing an
essay.
84
Moon (Moon, 1999a; Moon, 1999b; Moon, 2002; Moon, 2004) has published
extensively in the area of reflective and experiential practice, and has given
some consideration to issues relating to reflective writing, primarily in the
context of learning journals in professional education. She advises careful
planning and setting of learning objectives where such reflective writing is
assessed. For example, whilst acknowledging that they frequently co-exist,
she advises educators to be clear about whether journals are being used as a
learning tool, in which case the process is central, or as an outcome, when
the product is the main focus. Moon (2004) has also produced a pictorial
conception of the reflective writing process and an illustration differentiating
between descriptive and reflective writing. The implication from Moon’s work
is that, although reflective writing is different from the academic essay,
assessment of it should not prove any more challenging, as long as
academics are thoughtful about the purpose of particular pieces of writing and
guide students clearly.
Educators using learning journals in professional education have expressed
some ill ease about their use. Oldham and Henderson (2004) question the
effectiveness of learning journals in an evaluation of their use with Masters
level business studies students. Drawing on Moon (1999b) the authors
evaluated the level of engagement and criticality of participants and noted that
there were differences amongst the cohort. The use of a journal in itself was
not considered as a problematic factor, but the authors did reflect on the
possible role of prior educational experience, learning style and ‘self-
consciousness’ as potential impediments to fuller engagement. Thorpe (2004)
in a study of nursing students assessed though learning journals also raises
85
concerns about the effectiveness of journals. Thorpe raises similar concerns
about the ability of students to move from description to practice analysis and
criticality. This paper did not offer explanations for this beyond individual
students’ abilities in relation to reflective practice.
Creme (2003), drawing on the work of psychoanalyst Winnicott (1971),
questions the apparent reluctance in academic institutions to encourage
playfulness in the form of creativity. She suggests that such creativity helps to
enable students learn to express their own ideas and develop criticality in their
writing:
Students seem to spend too much time and energy in ‘getting it right’…the tutors say, ‘We want our students to behave like psychologists, historians, …’ – or whatever discipline they are in, ‘We don’t want to hear your opinion, we want to know that you understand these readings’. ‘Don’t use ‘I’; you are meant to be impersonal and objective’. Students internalise these imperatives and end up trying to parrot their reading. (Crème, 2003, p. 274).
In this discussion Creme suggests that the rules governing assessed
academic writing can dissuade students from investing too much of
themselves in their writing or taking risks. Creme (2005) explores the use of
learning journals as ‘new writing’ introduced by two different disciplines, a
second year political anthropology course and a first year interdisciplinary
course on critical reading focusing on death. Whilst Creme identified some
differences in the approach taken by each course (based primarily on
differences in context) there were important similarities, such as the space
created for the personal to be represented in student writing. Creme suggests
that learning journals provide a legitimate space for students to draw upon
their experience whilst developing the confidence to write authoritatively.
86
Where such journals are assessed, however, Creme suggest that the need to
create a final product can be unhelpful for some students:
However, students many find this separation between ‘writer’ and ‘product’ difficult to see, especially those lacking in confidence, as support tutors frequently see (see for example, Lillis, 2001). Student writers can invest what they feel is a good deal of ‘themselves’ in their writing and can feel wounded when it is not well received. It is a long and arduous process, rarely completed, to become detached from what we produce, and not to feel criticized as a person for it. (Crème, 2005, p. 292)
This comment has great resonance in the context of this thesis because
social work students are required to invest so much of themselves in their
writing that the ‘product’ that is assessed can indeed become very emotionally
charged. Data discussed in chapters 6 and 7 illustrate the ways in which
feedback from tutors, which could be interpreted as relating only to the
mechanics or organisation of students’ writing, is construed as deeply
personal criticism. The following quotation from Creme (2005) conveys well
the challenge posed by assessing personal writing, such as learning journals
and the reflective writing undertaken by social work students:
In the case of learning journals, the sense of a relationship between writer and text seems particularly close, as the student quote expresses, ‘She felt that her record of study in some way exposed herself, and that with this kind of vulnerability a formal assessment would be an insult.’ Only if it were not ‘judged’ could she feel able to be ‘honest’. (Crème, 2005, p. 293)
The influence of reader judgement, through assessment, on the writer’s ability
to freely and honestly express themselves is a significant theme in this thesis.
Creme’s work provides an insight into both the restrictive influence of
academic genres, such as the essay, and of the outcome of writing being for
assessment rather than for self-reflection and learning.
87
Taylor (2003) is an unusual voice in the literature in questioning reflective
practice itself, but in doing so she demonstrates a keen interest in what is
happening within the texts of reflective writing. Whilst not denying the value of
practitioners being thoughtful about their practice, Taylor questions whether
reflective writing does in fact give access to an authentic self and a more real
account of practice (Taylor, 2003, p. 12) and suggests that complacency
about such authenticity risks the genre escaping critical analysis. In particular
Taylor expresses the concern that the narrative nature of reflective writing
sidesteps critical analysis of the identities and social realities presented within
the text, as they are taken for granted as part of the lived experience of the
author. In her challenging discussion Taylor illustrates the hidden complexities
and academic rigour potentially involved in reflective writing.
Interestingly, although reflective writing is routinely used with undergraduate
social workers, much of the research relating to reflective writing and
journaling has been based on postgraduate studies, suggesting that it is a
writing skill associated with higher order cognitive skills. Hoadley-Maidment
(2000) and Jasper (2005) endorse this view, suggesting that the skills
developed in reflective writing are just those required in research, such as
creativity, transferability of learning, critical thinking and analysis. The
academic rigour of reflective writing, together with the potential pitfalls in
assessing it call into question why and how reflective writing is used in
undergraduate social work studies. Although an explanation of ‘why’ is
provided by the curriculum guidance from CCETSW and latterly the GSCC in
the National Occupational Standards and Regulations for Training for Social
Work and QAA Benchmark statement for Social Work (outlined in chapter 1),
88
this does not help us understand the impact that it has on students. This
thesis explores not only the pedagogic challenge of reflective writing (chapter
6) but also the emotional impact of engaging in assessed writing in which the
writer’s personal experience and identity is so much at the foreground
(chapter 7).
2.6 ‘Risky writing'
While research into the student experience of participating in reflective writing
appears limited, an interesting comparison can be drawn with debates about
the use of ‘personal’ or ‘expressionist’ writing in the US. Berman (2001)
evaluates the benefits, risks and practices surrounding what he terms ‘risky
writing’. His research draws upon the practice of composition students in the
US undertaking ‘personal writing’ or ‘expressionist writing’. Personal writing
developed in the 1960s and involved students writing assessed academic
memoirs. Although not undertaken in the context of professional education,
‘personal writing’ or ‘expressionist writing’ shares with reflective writing the
importance of the writers drawing upon their own personal or professional
experience. The purpose of each form of writing is a little different, the
personal writing being undertaken in order to develop the writer’s skills in
conveying their ideas in writing whilst reflective writing is generally employed
to develop the writer’s reflective skills. This is necessarily a very loose
distinction, as the term ‘reflective writing’ is used to refer to writing which may
or may not be assessed and which may be required of students for different
reasons, as discussed above in 2.5.2.
89
The use of ‘personal writing’ or ‘expressionist writing’ in composition courses
is a practice that has been criticised within the US both for being politically
ineffective, as it fails to develop critical minds, and academically ineffectual as
it focuses on the subjective and personal rather than an objective analysis.
Supporters of personal writing, such as Peter Elbow take a different view:
Personal expressive writing happens to be one among many registers or discourses we can use for academic duty. Because personal writing invites feeling it does not mean that it leaves out thinking (Elbow, 1990 cited in Berman, 2001, p. 26).
Beside criticisms of being ‘non-academic’ and ‘politically numbing’, (Berman
2001), Berman challenges the view that personal writing is non-academic,
suggesting that:
… personal writing can be among the most intellectually rigorous genres, demanding self-discipline and self-criticism. (Berman, 2001, p. 27)
Whilst defending justifications for personal writing, Berman raises the question
of how a teacher should respond to self-disclosure of highly sensitive
experiences such as abuse. This is particularly pertinent for the kinds of
reflective wiring undertaken by social work students, in which they may not
only be writing about experiences of working with emotive topics such as
abuse or discrimination, but may also write about their own personal
experiences.
Berman, in common with Boud (1999), discourages the grading of personal
writing beyond a broad ‘pass / fail’ to indicate participation, but where
assignments are assessed he provides some guidance for assessors.
Berman, in common with Waller (2000), discussed above in 2.4, focuses on
90
the need for tutors to employ a sensitive approach to responding to
expressive writing. He suggests that a teacher who keeps a focus on the
technicality of the writing may appear cold, whilst entering into dialogue about
the experience may risk over-stepping professional boundaries. He proposes
that teachers should employ empathy and avoid critique or contestation
because to do otherwise would imply that this is based on the misleading
assumption (as in psychoanalysis) that the therapist / teacher knows more
about the subject than the writer/ analysand. Berman stresses that empathy
does not necessarily imply agreement, but instead an understanding of
another’s world.
The work of researchers such as Berman (2001), Waller (2000) and Boud
(1999), although not all concerned specifically with the writing of student
social workers, all identify the importance of student/tutor dialogue where
writing involves the student sharing personal information. Within the helping
professions sharing personal information has a particular significance and is
sometimes referred to as self-disclosure. This important relationship between
the student writer and tutor will be discussed in chapters 6 and 7.
2.7 Self-disclosure
The concept of self-disclosure has its roots in sociological perspectives on
human interaction; the existence or degree of self-disclosure being based
upon normative behaviour relating to the level of intimacy between individuals.
Goffman (1963), was one of the first researchers to explore self-disclosure
and suggested that conditions for the relative appropriateness of self-
91
disclosure depended upon both the social context and the nature of the social
relationship. Chelune (1979) proposed the following definition:
The term self-disclosure has been loosely used to describe the degree to which persons reveal information about themselves to another, including their thoughts, feelings, and experiences… Self-disclosure includes any information exchange that refers to the self, including personal states, dispositions, events in the past, and plans for the future. (Chelune, 1979, p. 152)
Normative approaches to self-disclosure suggest that making disclosures can
help maintain cultural values by regulating expected social behaviour and also
serve individuals’ instrumental goals, dependant on the power relations
involved. Chelune’s exploration of the functions of self-disclosure concluded
that it is a potential powerful tool, the impact of which depends upon the
context and relationships within which it is used. Chelune (1979) refers to
three important aspects of self-disclosure which impact upon its function.
Firstly the ‘normative’ nature of the context in which self-disclosure takes
place, or in other words how socially acceptable or common-place self-
disclosure is. For example it may be more socially acceptable to share
intimate or personal information with your GP than with a shop assistant. The
second factor is the ‘expressive value’ of the self-disclosure, how honest,
detailed and significant to the teller the information is. The same piece of
information may have a very different meaning or significance depending
upon who discloses it and who receives it. For example a disclosure of a
bereavement may be relatively insignificant if the death was long ago,
concerned a person to whom the teller was not emotionally close, or even if
although the death was significant, the information is given in such a way as
to protect the teller through humour or other defences. The third feature is
92
‘voluntariness’. This relates to the power balance between the teller and
listener and whether the self-disclosure arises from independent volition
(maybe arising from trust or some other motivation which benefits the teller) or
from a degree of compulsion. Members of less powerful groups may disclose
more intimate information than they receive, thereby increasing their
vulnerability to influence (Kelvin, 1977 and Henley, 1973 and 1977 cited in
Chelune, 1979):
… it should be noted that social norms may inhibit self-disclosure and isolate individuals from one another. For instance, males may be expected to avoid self-disclosure, particularly in areas that emphasis personal concerns, weakness, and emotional difficulties. (Chelune, 1979, p. 164)
Within the therapeutic context, and that of mental health in particular (Roger,
1962; Jourard, 1971) self-disclosure is a foundational concept which originally
referred only to information flowing to the helper from the service user. Self-
disclosure is used in psychoanalysis to refer to the sharing of personal
information, particularly in the context of an analysand sharing information
with a analysand. In this context such personal information is shared with
great caution, but in the belief that such exchanges can potentially build trust
within a confidential, therapeutic relationship (Sticker and Fisher, 1990). The
discussion in this section is particularly significant as social work students are
required to engage in such disclosure in the context of assessment, which is
neither confidential nor necessarily a trusting context.
93
2.8 Conclusion
In this conclusion I draw together two broad issues which have arisen from
this overview of research which are relevant to the study of student writing in
social work education. Firstly, the research outlined here relating to academic
literacies provides a socially orientated perspective within which to talk about
student writing. This perspective recognises the importance of several
aspects of social context, encompassing both the individual (writer /
addressee) and the institution, including power based institutional practices
and disciplinarity. Critical work on inconsistent institutional practices (Lea,
1998; Lea and Street, 2000) and the multi-disciplinary nature of practice-
based subjects such as social work will be used to explore both the nature of
the writing tasks set and the expectations of students’ writing (through both
course guidance and tutor feedback). I have also drawn from this body of
work the concept of ‘writing practice’ as a tool to talk about the range of
activities associated with student writing, focusing on emotion, circularity, and
human interaction as outlined in 2.3.
The second broad area that has been influential on this thesis is research
relating specifically to writing in social work and reflective writing in associated
practice-based learning. This work raises some important areas warranting
further exploration relating to the self and emotionality in writing. The
importance of a visible self in social work writing stems from the centrality of
values and reflection on one’s own practice within the discipline of social
work. Whilst this has an impact on the expectations of how student social
workers write, the consequences resulting from inconsistencies with more
94
traditional academic ways of writing have been little recognised. These
include the challenges posed for both writer and assessor when academic
writing involves personal experience but also the importance, for social work
in particular, of developing visible conventions of writing which permit the
visibility of the author. The centrality of the self in writing, and the challenges
which this poses for the writer and assessor, have led me to have a particular
interest in building on the social dimension of student writing through
exploring the interpersonal and psychological dimensions. The particular
profile of social work students (broadly mature, women learners) adds an
important perspective on individual experiences highlighted by Lillis’s (2001)
work with non-traditional students.
In the following chapter I draw upon established research relating to writer
identity from a sociological perspective and explore how this might be
enhanced by psychological perspectives on identity. As identity represents a
significant body of work which is central to this thesis, this discussion will be
the sole focus of chapter 3.
95
3. Chapter three: Identity in writing
3.1 Introduction
This chapter focuses on the relationship between identity and student writing.
I will begin by outlining the significance of identity to the study of writing
generally and student writing in particular. Drawing upon the ideas of
Althusser (1969), Foucault (1972; 1979), Sarup (1996), Hall (1996) and Hall
and Maharaj (2001), I will present a perspective on identity which recognises
the positioning of individuals in relation to both institutions and others. I will
then explore the contributions of influential theorists on writer identity working
from a sociological frame, in particular the work of Ivanič (Ivanic, 1996; Clark
and Ivanic, 1997; Ivanič, 1998, Ivanič, 2006). Through examining this body of
work I will explore the possibilities for applying psychological and
psychoanalytic ideas on identity and the self to gain a greater understanding
of the relationship between identity and the student writer.
3.2 Theorising social identity: the relevance of
identity to academic writing
In 2.2.4, I outlined Bazerman’s four contexts pertinent to analysing texts
(2004). Lea (2002) suggests that, of the four, identities warrant a more
extensive exploration. She suggests that the issue of identity and personhood
is particularly relevant to certain forms of writing undertaken in practice-based
education, where there is potential conflict between the identity of the student
as professional apprentice and the student as academic apprentice (Lea,
96
2002). One of the themes arising from the literature on writing in practice-
based education (discussed in 2.3.1) is the way in which professional and
academic ways of being, or identities, interact. This is particularly pertinent
where students undertake writing tasks in which they are expected to draw
upon practice or even personal experience alongside more traditional
academic learning, as is frequently the case in writing undertaken on practice-
based courses such as social work. The study of identity is a broad area
which has been approached from many disciplinary perspectives including
sociology, psychology and philosophy. Some of the most influential
perspectives over the past half-century has resulted from the writings of
Foucault (1972; 1979), Althusser (1969) and more recently Hall (1996) and
Hall and Maharaj, (2001).
3.3 Identity as ‘subject’: the influence of radical
social theory
The work of Foucault (1972; 1979), provides a perspective on identity and
society which underpins the work of researchers central to my exploration of
identity and writing including Ivanič (1997), Clark and Ivanič (1997), Henriques
et al. (1998) and Frosh (1991; 2002). As a result this work has been very
influential on my thesis, despite the otherwise divergent disciplines informed
by these key works. For this reason I give an overview of Foucault’s key ideas
here.
One of Foucault’s major contributions has been his analysis of knowledge-
power relations and the interaction of multiple discourses (Foucault 1972;
97
Foucault 1979). Foucault’s theorisation of the concept of ‘discourse’
developed through the course of his work, but in simple terms concerns the
ways in which knowledge and its communication take place within society and
influence social structures. According to Strydom (2000), Foucault’s emphasis
moved from representing discourse as ‘autonomous and constitutive of reality’
(Strydom, 2000, p. 36) towards a concern with the impact of power:
He sought to show that discourse does not constitute reality but rather that discursive knowledge is actually produced in the service of expanding social power which increasingly penetrates modern institutions like prisons, armies, schools factories and so forth. (Strydom, 2000, p. 36).
Foucault’s emphasis on institutional power provides us with concepts to talk
about the ways in which institutions and institutional practices impact upon the
‘subjects’ who relate to them. Foucault uses the term ‘subject’ to refer to the
individual in relation to institutions and discourses. He suggests that subjects
are influenced by discourses and also by their position in relation to
institutions (Foucault, 1972). Whilst Foucault’s central interest is not ‘identity’,
his discussion of the process of subjugation through discourses played out in
institutions is relevant here. Foucault argues that it is through ‘struggles’
against the power enacted through institutions that individuals are able to
assert their individuality and to challenge the processes or techniques of
subjugation;
This (modern) form of power applies itself to immediate everyday life which categorises the individual, marks him by his own individuality, attaches him to his own identity, imposes a law of truth on him which he must recognise and by which others have to recognise him. (Foucault, 1983, p. 212)
98
Foucault’s work, therefore foregrounds the key concepts of power, discourses
and the inter-relationship between individuals (or in his terms subjects) and
institutions. He recognises that ideology subjugates individuals not only
through discourse but also in the physical and active manifestations of
particular discourses;
Take for example an educational institution: the disposal of its space, the meticulous regulations which govern its internal life, the different activities which are organised there, the diverse persons who live there or meet one another... ensures apprenticeship and the acquisition of aptitudes or types of behaviour is developed there by means of a whole ensemble of regulated communications (lessons, questions and answers, orders, exhortations, coded signs of obedience, differentiation marks of the ‘value’ of each person and of the levels of knowledge. (Foucault, 1983, p. 282)
Foucault presents us, therefore, with a conceptual framework to view the
relationship between identity and individuals’ relationships and interaction with
institutions which either place them as a subject, endowed with the identity
prescribed by the dominant institutional discourse, or in a position of struggle.
The above quotation provides an image of the potential breadth of institutional
practices which regulate the expected role of subjects; individuals can either
conform by adopting and internalising such roles and practices or adopt a
position of struggle and challenge. This latter position will have
consequences, however, due to the powerful nature of these institutional
activities.
For the purposes of this thesis, I conceptualise the relevance of discourse
based on the work of Henriques et al. (1998) (discussed in 3.8.4). Briefly, this
work recognises the significance of discourses to the development of
identities but also in human interaction. Consequently the relevance of
99
particular discourses (which may be interconnected) arise from specific social
contexts and the individuals interacting within them. I am also particularly
concerned with the student as a subject of the institution of the university, and
the ways in which students and tutors are positioned in relation to each other
and to the discourses generated through the institution of the university. A
further layer, however, arises from the particular discipline studied; social
work is not only an academic field but also a profession closely allied to the
nation state. The profession of social work influences the experience of
students through their practice learning but also through the stipulation and
regulation of the curriculum against which they are assessed. A clear example
of this is the Code of Practice for social care workers. This document provides
a:
…list of statements that describe the standards of professional conduct and practice required of social care workers as they go about their daily work.(Department of Health, 2002, p. 3)
The Code of Practice is published by the General Social Care Council, a
government appointed organisation responsible for regulating social care and
social work in England. The Code is one value-based element of the
curriculum against which students must demonstrate understanding and
compliance in assessed academic work as well as through their practice. This
emphasis on professional values is an added dimension to the university and
disciplinary ideologies encountered by all students in higher education. Social
work values form a compulsory ideology which touches individual identity in a
very intimate way through its focus on beliefs and values as well as action.
The first of six areas covered by the code states that:
100
As a social care worker, you must protect the rights and promote the interests of service users and carers.
• This includes:
• Treating each person as an individual;
• Respecting and, where appropriate, promoting the individual views and wishes of both service users and carers;
• Supporting service users’ rights to control their lives and make informed choices about the services they receive;
• Respecting and maintaining the dignity and privacy of service users;
• Promoting equal opportunities for service users and carers; and
• Respecting diversity and different cultures and values.
(DOH, 2002, p. 14-15)
This item of the Code (which is still current) requires social workers to adopt a
uniform approach to valuing the beliefs and behaviour of others which
recognises the power that social workers hold as agents of the state as well
as the inequalities in society. It also represents a particular ideology,
endorsed by the state, to which social work students are compelled to comply
in order to achieve their professional and academic qualification. This thesis
questions some of the implications for students of complying with a clear
example of ideological subjugation or, in other words, of conforming to
particular ways of belief and action aligned to state and institutional power.
101
3.4 Subjects and institutions
3.4.1 Ideological subjugation
Hall (1996), building on the work of Foucault, proposes that identities are a
product of both discourse and power and as such are constructed through
difference (Hall, 1996, p. 3). To represent this relational aspect of identity, Hall
uses the term ‘identification’ to indicate the way in which subjects recognise
sameness or difference between themselves and others (1996, p. 4).
Althusser’s context for discussing ideology is focused on the relationship
between the individual and institutions closely aligned to the power of the
state. This creates useful resonances relevant to higher education and to
student writing in that there is a clear recognition of ‘education’ as an
ideology-based institution. In universities ideologies may not be entirely
controlled by the state and may in fact challenge the ideology of the state, but
nonetheless retain power and a close relationship with state ideologies
through for example funding, research and educational policies. Althusser’s
essay (Althusser, 1969), together with the work of Foucault, therefore
provides a theoretical framework for thinking about the relationship between
subjects and powerful institutions, in this case students and universities,
which make important links between ideology, identification, power
relationships and institutional practices.
3.4.2 Beyond class-based identification
Althusser’s primary concern, in common with Marx, was class-based
hierarchies based on an essentially Eurocentric perspective. The influence of
102
gender and ethnicity do not appear to be accounted for as factors influencing
identification. A broader approach has been developed by Sarup (1996) who
places the identity debate in the context of post-structuralism and challenges
to Marxist ideology based upon a unified class consciousness. In presenting
the ideas of Laclau and Mouffe (1985), Sarup suggests that:
… class essentialism must give way to the pluralist demands of the new social movements, the new Communities of interest; these include groups concerned with anti-racism, environmentalism, feminism, gay rights, lesbianism, peace and so forth (Sarup, 1996, pp. 55-6)
This suggests that in a post-structuralist approach to society identification
remains strongly influenced by institutions, but there is more diversity of
institutions. With a diverse spectrum of possible ideologies with which to
identify, individuals take subject positions which may reflect oppositional or
associative identifications. Unlike the work stemming from a Marxist tradition,
Sarup presents us with a less passive individual, able to respond consciously
to multiple sources of influence. Sarup illustrates the fluidity of this
experience:
Our identities are multiple and mobile. Though the process of change dissolves the fixed, stable, homogeneous identities of the past, it also opens the possibility of new articulations – the construction of new identities, the production of new subjects. (Sarup, 1996, p. 57)
Sarup continues to consider Laclau’s discussion of the relationship between
identity and oppression, suggesting that the interdependence of aspects of
identity results in contradictions. He uses the illustration of a subject
identifying with an ethnic minority group: in order for the oppositional ethnic
minority identity to exist there also needs to be identification with the ‘nation’
in which the minority is oppressed, otherwise there would be integration and
103
this oppositional identity would cease to exist. Where the subject identifies
with such contradictory elements, they are in effect experiencing identification
with both the oppressor and the oppressed:
If the oppressed is defined by its difference from the oppressor, such a difference is an essential component of the identity of the oppressed. But in that case, the latter cannot assert its identity without asserting that of the oppressor as well. (Sarup, 1996, p. 60).
This concept is well illustrated in the research of Janks (1999) in the context
of a Critical Language Awareness course for lecturers in South Africa. One
case study, Mpho, illustrates how as a black African woman (who was
educated in a former Bantu education school) she identifies herself in the
context of a historically white university. She adopts the construct of being
academically needy and disadvantaged and responds to this, even as a
lecturer, by being submissive and non-confrontational. Hence her identity as a
black woman incorporates her identity as a South African, as represented by
the oppressive attitudes acted out within the University. Mpho asks herself:
As an academic do I become objective and detach myself from such experiences and analyse them or do I explore my subjective feelings and respond at a personal level. Is my objectivism one way of silencing me? What other things are silencing me in this institution, should I look beyond the institution for answers. How do I get my voice back? How do I develop a voice? (Cited in Janks, 1999, p. 233).
This illustrates both how the oppressed individual internalises the identity of
the oppressor, and also the way in which the culture and practices of the
university can act as a powerful agent in regulating the voices not only of
students but of academic staff also.
104
Janks suggests that cultural practices and conflicts with respect to
identification also exist within particular discourses. Janks draws upon Gee’s
imagery of discourses representing an:
‘Identity kit’ which comes complete with the appropriate costume and instructions on how to act, talk, and often write, so as to take on a particular social role that others will recognise. (Gee, 1990, p. 142 Cited in Janks, 1999, p. 232).
Reflecting upon her research participants, Janks continues by observing that:
Unlike clothes, which can be altered, it is they who have to change to fit the discourse, if they hope to acquire it. (Janks, 1999).
The complexity of identifications are well represented in this thesis, with
blurred distinctions in relation to, for example, students foregrounding their
social class, ethnicity and culture as relevant to their writing (see 6.4, 7.2.1,
7.3.1 and 7.6). There is also a connection with the way in which the practice
learning course requires compliance with a set of values prescribed by a
government body responsible for setting the curriculum.
3.5 Otherness and translation
Hall (Hall and Maharaj 2001), sharing Janks and Sarup’s concern for identity
and difference, introduces the concept of ‘otherness’. He suggests that all
identities have in common the fact that they are culturally constructed and that
they always exist in the context of opposites or ‘otherness’. By this Hall is
referring to the idea that an identity can be determined as much by the ways
in which it differs from others as by any commonalities. Hence dialogue is
influenced as much by what is not there, what is not shared or understood as
by what is there between two parties. He develops this concept to suggest
105
that all aspects of identity have a relational ‘other’, or lack some element
which he describes as the ‘relational other’. One important feature of the
relational other is that, as all identities are created within a context of power,
each has a relative power in relation to any other identity. Hall draws on
Lacan, working in the psychoanalytic tradition particularly relevant to this
thesis, to illustrate his point by suggesting that:
The ‘truth’ of the Lacanian insight is that the subject is constructed across a ‘lack’, the self by its ‘others’. This is for me an absolutely fundamental point, as it implies that within ourselves, within the terms of a meaning, we are always inadequate. We cannot complete ourselves. We are always open to that which is other or different from ourselves, which we cannot encapsulate into ourselves, draw into our field of meaning or representation. (Hall in Hall and Maharaj, 2001, p. 27)
In this statement Hall recognises identity as intrinsically relational and also as
incorporating difference in an essential way. There are many implications of
Hall’s analysis of identity and otherness for writer identity beyond the
commonly accepted notion that identities are constructed through social
discourse and are relational. Hall’s analysis of the relational nature of identity
(Hall, 1996; Hall and Maharaj, 2001) also provides a useful conceptual frame
for thinking about individual interactions. Drawing on Bakhtin (1981), Lacan
and Saussure, Hall (2001) suggests that all texts and conversations are both
embedded in and dependent upon cultural practices, and that individuals’
experiences and interpretations of such cultural practices differ, resulting in
‘cultural translation’. This means that, in the context of student texts, the
reader and author are both involved in a ‘cultural translation’ and their
translations will differ more the greater the cultural differences there are
between the individuals. Hall’s use of the word ‘cultural’ is very broad and
106
suggests that the cultural (or social) context of each person is unique to that
individual. This makes all dialogue a form of translation which, as the
addressee translates based upon their own cultural perspective, is always
imperfect. Hall, drawing on Bakhtin, argues that one feature of dialogue is that
it has no clear beginning or end. This is because an understanding of any one
dialogue is always influenced by what passed before and will pass after it,
although endings and beginnings can be artificially imposed. Texts and other
forms of communication are the same in this respect; they also share the
feature of having no ‘pure’ or culturally untainted beginning or end, they are
always interpretations.
Hall’s discussion of translation provides an important perspective on texts and
identity. Inevitable cultural differences between reader and writer will result in
differences in understanding of meaning. Hall is suggesting that meaning-
making, and interpretation of that meaning-making, is inevitably a site for
imperfect translation and for the enactment of power differences as
represented in identity. This perspective has particular relevance when
considering Lillis’s research with non-traditional students (Lillis 2001) in which
she is also concerned with writer identities. Lillis’s research demonstrated the
impact of identity positions deriving from the student role, gender, social class
and ethnicity, all of which provided examples of relational powerlessness.
Lillis (2001) relates Foucault’s discussion of regulatory practices to student
writing, suggesting that ‘essayist literacy’ (see 2.2.3) is one such practice to
which students are expected to conform, even if conforming creates internal
identity conflict. Lillis uses examples from her work with non-traditional
student writers to illustrate how they are inclined to minimise or exclude
107
aspects of ‘themselves’ which they perceive as being contrary to the social
practice of essayist literacy in the university. Taking Hall’s analysis to its
fullest extent would suggest, however, that all subject positions or identities
involve relational power dynamics which will impact on dialogue and that all
subject positions or identities result in imperfect communication of meaning.
Power dynamics and the complexities of meaning-making, therefore, become
relevant for all student writers.
My aim in this chapter thus far has been to draw together some of the key
sociologically orientated themes from extensive bodies of work which,
although necessarily presented very briefly here, are central to this thesis.
Firstly this section has located student writing as communicative acts taking
place in universities, which are ideologically based institutions. As subjects of
the university, students will be positioned (or position themselves) differently
with their relations influenced not only by culture but also by power deriving
from factors such as class, gender and heritage. The nature of social work (as
a field of study and a profession) involves students in an unusual level of
engagement with the relationship between identity and ideology, particularly in
relation to the assessment of values. These differences build individual
identities through not only what is common but also differences or imbalances
in power. These cultural differences impact on not only the ways in which
identifications take place but also communicative acts, including the writing,
reading and exchange of student writing. These themes have been picked up
with specific reference to student writing and recur throughout the thesis. I
now turn to focus on the work of one theorist who has provided an influential
sociological analysis of writer identity, Roz Ivanič. I focus in some detail on
108
this work as Ivanič shares with me not only an interest in academic student
writing and identity but also an interest in social work because her work
includes a case study of one writer studying for a social work qualification.
3.6 Writing and identity: Roz Ivanič
Ivanič (Clark and Ivanič, 1997; Ivanič, 1998; Ivanič, 2006), whose work has
been referred to in 2.3 in discussion of academic writing, has provided a
significant contribution to research on the relationship between identity and
student writing. This work has drawn primarily on sociological and also post-
structuralist perspectives on identity referred to above. Ivanič’s theorisation
takes account of radical social theorists’ ideas on subjects, institutions and
discourse but also draws upon social constructionism (discussed below in 3.6)
to offer a theory of writer identity. In her recent paper Ivanič (2006) draws
upon ‘activity theory’ (AT), a systemic approach in which:
The AT representation of human activity does not use the word ‘identity’, but it specifies ‘Subjects’ as one of the three main elements in an activity system: people – the participants, the social actors in the activity. (Ivanič, 2006, p. 6).
In doing so Ivanič builds upon the ‘process’ model of writing, which is
concerned with writers actions or behaviour in the process of producing texts,
and instead opens up debate on how writers’ ‘being’ is represented in the
texts which they produce (Ivanič, 1997, p. 98). Ivanič describes this move
from ‘doing’ to ‘being’ as a theoretical move from a ‘process’ view of writer
and reader to a ‘social’ view. Ivanič differentiates between the ‘writer as
performer’ involved in process tasks and the ‘writer as character’, through
whom the writer portrays aspects of the self.
109
Figure 12: A ‘social’ view of writer and reader as both doing something and being represented in the text (Ivanic 1997 p. 96)
In Figure 12, Ivanič illustrates the way in which the production of a text is
influenced by the writer both considering the anticipated interpretation of the
reader and also the writer’s own interpretation of reality. Thus the ‘writer-as-
performer’ makes choices in relation to the production of the text and through
this process s/he represents him/herself within the text as the writer-as-
character. The writer-as-character, therefore, provides an insight into the
writer’s social relationship with the reader, the writer’s views on the subject
matter but also the writer’s perception of the reader’s views on the subject
matter. Thus the writer is not only acting out their own position in relation to
the subject matter through the text, but mediating this position based upon
their perception of the reader’s position. Ivanič suggests that this
110
communicative act, as suggested by Hall (2001), involves an interpretation of
the social realities of both writer and reader.
In her theorisation of identity, Ivanič (1998) draws upon social constructionist
theories represented by Gergen (Gergen and Davis, 1985; Gergen, 1991) and
social role theory developed by Goffman (Goffman, 1969). Her work also
applies the work of Halliday (1978; 1994) and Fairclough (1989), who have
provided influential approaches to text analysis and researching language and
identity. These works derive primarily from sociological world views and are
used by Ivanič to construct a framework for exploring the ways in which
elements of an individual’s social identity are both played out within texts and
influence the writer’s literacy practices.
Ivanič’s framework (see Figure13) draws upon Goffman’s dramaturgical
concept of individuals’ identity deriving from the diverse social roles that they
play through participation in social interactions, or ‘scenes’. Her theorisation of
social roles in the context of writing suggests that writers play out three
aspects of ‘self’ in writing; the autobiographical self, the discoursal self and
the authorial self:
• The autobiographical self relates to the writer’s personal history
including past and present experiences, values and beliefs. The
autobiographical self is therefore necessarily variable as it will evolve
alongside individual experiences. Ivanič suggests that it is the
autobiographical self which lies behind a writer’s text although it may
not be clearly visible and can be either conscious or subconscious. In
fact in academic writing, characterised as objective, there may be an
111
expectation that the autobiographical self does not appear in the text
(Ivanic 1997 p. 168-9). This is an issue that I will return to in relation to
assessed reflective writing undertaken in the context of social work
education which requires the writer to not only recount personal
experiences but also explore personal values and beliefs.
Figure 13 Ivanič’s aspects of writer identity (Clark and Ivanic 1997p. 137)
• The discoursal self, or more accurately discoursal selves, on the other hand are identifiable in the text. The discoursal self acts out the various discourses which are available to the writer. In Ivanič’s words:
A writer’s ‘discoursal self’ is the impression – often multiple, sometimes contradictory – which they consciously or unconsciously convey of themselves in a particular written text. (Ivanič, 1998, p. 25).
• The discourses voiced by an individual may be many and may vary depending upon the specific text. The various discoursal positions may also differ in the extent to which they are congruent with the autobiographical self.
112
• Where the autobiographical self is represented in the text as an authorial voice, Ivanič suggests that the writer is using the self as author. An important aspect of the self as author is that the writer is presenting his or her own views or perspective with an authoritative voice. As with the autobiographical voice, the regulative nature of academic conventions can make authors cautious about adopting an authoritative voice (particularly novice writers), encouraging them to rely heavily upon acknowledged published sources to construct a discussion. (Ivanic, 1997, p. 23-30)
Ivanič’s three aspects of identity are concepts used to describe the way in
which social identity is played out and represented in authors’ writing. The
autobiographical self is an underlying, multi-faceted and changing backcloth
influencing the discoursal and authorial processes. Ivanič’s strongest focus is
on the discoursal self, or the way in which writers represent multiple
discoursal voices in their text which potentially conflict not only with each
other but also with the values and beliefs represented by the autobiographical
self.
Ivanič illustrates her discussion of the autobiographical self through the case
study of Rachel, a first year social work student (Ivanic, 1997, p. 124ff). In this
case study, discussed in more detail in 3.7, Ivanič identifies the discoursal
positions of Rachel as trainee social worker, as apprentice academic and as
radical feminist. Of these, Rachel participates in the first two somewhat
reluctantly, whilst she embraces the radical feminist discourse more
enthusiastically as it maps most closely against her autobiographical self
(Ivanic, 1997, p. 156-8). Ivanič’s framework provides a tool for analysing the
layers of voices within student writing. The choices that writers make about
which discourses they perform in their writing depend upon both the students’
familiarity with that discourse and also the influence of their autobiographical
113
self, which may result in conflict or resistance. In order to participate
effectively in any discourse through writing the author needs to have sufficient
familiarity with the language, concepts and values represented, something
which Rachel again had only partially developed. An authorial voice, Ivanič
suggests, does not necessarily develop even with cognisance of specialist
discourse(s) but relies upon the writer having sufficient confidence to believe
that their voice has validity and credence (Ivanič, 1997, p. 158).
Although Ivanič’s framework draws upon Goffman’s social roles theory, she
acknowledges two central criticisms of his work (Ivanic, 1997, p. 20). Firstly,
by suggesting that individuals are in command of their performances,
Goffman appears to minimise the limitations placed on individuals’ freedom to
act resulting from their subject positioning or imbalances in power. Secondly,
Goffman fails to acknowledge any psychological conflict arising from
individuals moving between roles, giving the impression of smooth and
effortless performances and overlooking the inevitable tensions and conflicts
arising from both playing a series of roles and moving between them (Ivanic,
1997, p. 22). Ivanič addresses both of these criticisms, by drawing on a social
constructionist perspective. Social constructionists, such as Gergen (1985;
1991), suggest that social norms which regulate individual performances
result from participants reaching a shared understanding of meaning. Norms
of behaviour can be changed, but only if a new consensus of meaning is
achieved. Like Howard and Hollander (1997), she warns that the social
constructionist approach can appear to minimise the difficulty of bringing
about such changes in consensus:
114
In its emphasis on individual agency, this approach minimizes the constraints of social structures and the effects of power inequities. Action is always situated somewhere. The particularities of actors’ genders, class positions, races and sexualities have direct material consequences for the range of actions they can envision, let alone perform. (Howard and Hollander, 1997, p. 39)
The limitations on individual agency are recognised by Ivanič and she uses a
critical approach to social constructionism, drawing on Foucault (Rabinow,
1991) and Parker (1989). This position acknowledges both imbalances in
power and also the ability of individuals to act autonomously to bring about
change or make conscious choices about the ways in which they will engage
in social interactions.
In a development of her theory of writer identity, Ivanič (2006) draws upon
activity theory to suggest that the context of learning can provide a social and
cultural environment in which identification can contribute to student learning
and can be played out through writing. In doing so she shifts her emphasis
from identity to identification as a process and also to suggest that, based on
her current research, there is evidence that work-based learning
environments can offer possibilities for identification which can contribute to
learning. Moreover writing provides a significant site for such identification to
be played out.
One of the important contributions of Ivanič’s research has been to establish a
clear link between student writers’ texts and their social identity, building upon
the well established connection between language and identity (Fairclough,
1989). Ivanič applies this work to the context of student texts and, through her
use of critical social constructionist and social role theory, she provides a
framework for mapping social identity through analysing text alongside talk
115
with the authors of texts (Ivanič, 1997, p. 41-44), recognising the two-way flow
of influence between texts, individuals and their social conditions:
Figure 14: Discourse as text, interaction and content (adapted from Fariclough, 1989 by Ivanič, 1998, p. 41)
Layer 3
CONTEXT OF CULTURE
Social conditions of production
Social conditions of interpretation
Layer 2
CONTEXT OF SITUATION
Process of production
Process of interpretation
Layer 1
TEXT
Figure 14 reproduces Ivanič’s conceptualisation of discourse as text,
interaction and content, adapted from the original by Fairclough (1989). Here
Ivanič illustrates two layers of influence on the text, the outer layer
representing the context of culture (including the social conditions of
production and interpretation) and the inner layer the context of situation
(consisting of the processes of production and interpretation). There is a two-
way stream of influence to and from the text and these two layers. Through
this framework both the discoursal context and also the meaning-making of
producers of language and interpreters are recognised. Ivanič suggests that
through this diagram:
116
Fairclough shows how a text (written or spoken) is inextricable from the processes of production and interpretation which create it, and that these processes are in turn inextricable from the various local, institutional and soci-historical conditions within which the participants are situated. (Ivanič, 1997, p. 41)
Through this conceptualisation of text production and interpretation, Ivanič is
emphasising the integral significance of social context at all levels from the
broad cultural though to the minutiae of the situational. These social
influences are ‘performed’, in the main, by the writers and readers of texts.
This establishes the importance, therefore, not only of social influence but of
the interpretations and interaction of these key players in the creation of texts.
Ivanič’s work, therefore, has foregrounded some very significant themes
which I draw on through out this thesis. Most importantly, Ivanič’s work
establishes the place of identity in the context of student writing. Through her
sociological framing of identity in texts, she offers the possibility of exploring
the ways in which identity and subject positioning can both be found within
texts and influence the creation of texts. This makes a crucial link between the
identity of individuals and their social and cultural context but also introduces
the significance of the relationship between writer and reader. These concepts
underlie much of this thesis and are explored in particular detail in chapters 6
and 7.
3.7 Developing Ivanič’s model of writer identity
While recognising the importance of Ivanič’s framework and the specific
relevance of the concepts identified above to my thesis, there are some
specific aspects of writer identity which I will attempt to develop in this thesis.
117
This development of Ivanič’s work has partly arisen out of my differing
disciplinary perspective and partly from the data and findings themselves.
Ivanič’s academic context is that of linguistics, with a particular interest in
sociological perspectives. My own background (as discussed in chapter 1) is
from within the discipline of social work education as a practitioner and
educator. Consequently, although Ivanič and I share an interest in the
relationship between identity and writing and the broad social context of
knowledge-power relations, Ivanič’s interests and skills have led her towards
a more text-orientated methodology, drawing upon her expertise in socio-
linguistics alongside interviewing students. My research has drawn upon my
discipline-specific knowledge as a social worker and social work educator and
my interests in personal interaction rooted in a psychoanalytic tradition.
Drawing upon Ivanič’s research (1998) and my study, I intend to offer a critical
development of her framework in two areas. Firstly I take a critical approach
to institutional practices from the perspective of being within a specific
discipline, that of social work. As a researcher I have drawn upon my own
experience as a social worker and social work lecturer, familiar with both
relevant discourses and pedagogical practices, to critically evaluate
institutional and course-related documents to explore the student experience
of writing. Secondly, as noted above, Ivanič is primarily concerned with a
sociological perspective and, as noted by Lea (Lea, 2001), does not draw
upon (either to employ or to discard) theorisation from psychology or
psychoanalysis. I will be suggesting that these disciplines offer perspectives
which may assist in addressing some unanswered questions relating to writer
identity. I will firstly address the insights drawn from my specific disciplinary
118
perspectives which I would suggest are helpful in gaining an understanding of
student writing.
3.7.1 Institutional practices in social work writing
Ivanič’s data includes a detailed case study based upon a student social
worker. This data is so close to my own study that it provides a valuable
opportunity to apply the disciplinary practices within social work that I have
encountered. Ivanič’s research recognises the relevance of disciplinary and
institutional practices, particularly in the ways in which disciplinary discourses
and unequal power relations can have an impact upon students’ possibilities
for selfhood. Here I use Ivanič’s case study of Rachel to illustrate the
relevance of ‘insider’ disciplinary awareness.
Rachel is a social work student in Ivanič’s study who undertakes an
assignment as part of her social work qualification. In this respect Rachel’s
case study has much in common with the data collected for this thesis. In the
following extract, Ivanič explores the ways in which Rachel presents herself
as ‘student social worker’ rather than ‘academic student’.
Figure 15: Rachel. Extracts from Ivanič, 1998, p. 133-4
Writing social work case notes
Rachel establishes an apprentice social work identity at the very beginning of the essay. She does not start with a conventional academic introduction, outlining the structure of the paper, but with the following sentence:
Extract 6.1 (a) (lines 1-2)
I worked with family C during my Second placement with a Child Protection Agency.
This contrasts with the way she started at least one other essay in the same year:
Extract 6.1 (b)
I will first outline what is currently known about HIV/AIDS.
119
However, the choice of how to begin the essay was not just a difference between the nature of the assignments. The student who got the highest mark for the 'placement' essay followed the academic convention of outlining the content of the essay in her opening:
Extract 6.1 (c)
The introduction to this essay will take the form of a brief outline of the referral taken in respect of the case study I intend to look at. From then it will then be possible to examine the social work practice undertaken, the theory involved in this and the outcome of the intervention and how this might have differed if other options had been explored.
Rachel, by choosing NOT to introduce her essay in this way, identified herself as not taking an academic approach to the assignment. She started with 'I worked' — identifying herself as a student social worker by referring to her own past action. This first person, past tense verb is not typical of the discourse of social scientific essays, except possibly for the reporting of anthropo-logical fieldwork.
Rachel and I identified lines 2-24 as having the discoursal characteristics of professional social work case notes, interwoven from line 15 onwards with a more informal narrative. Of this section she said
Rachel: The first bit is quite kind of clinical isn't it — like two referrals made, prior to my involvement, it's kind of professional
What Rachel calls 'clinical' is represented by several linguistic features, particularly prevalent between lines 2 and 22. Although this section presents background information about events in the life of a family, it starts with a grammar of nouns and states rather than human agents and actions. First, there is a heading and list format for the Family composition. This is very much as it might appear in case notes at the Agency.
(Ivanič, 1998, p. 133-4)
In the above extract, Ivanič suggests that Rachel’s style of opening is
breaking with academic conventions and therefore an illustration of her choice
to distance herself from one discoursal identity (apprentice academic) and
embrace her identity as student social worker. From my perspective within
social work this claim is problematic for two main reasons. Firstly, it is not
unconventional to use the first person extensively within social work writing.
Rachel’s writing appears, from Ivanič’s discussion, to be an example of an
assignment required of all social work courses in the UK at the time of the
respective studies (see discussion in 1.2.1). Such assignments involve a very
specific, complex and challenging form of reflective writing that requires the
student to draw together experience from practice, personal values and
120
beliefs and relate these to theoretical learning from the course. As I discuss in
chapter 5, it is expected that in such assignments students will use the first
person so that personal and practice experience will be included, thus
involving a merging of narrative and analytical text types.
I would question, therefore, whether the main reason for the essay in extract
6.1 receiving the ‘highest mark’ was adherence to ‘social science academic
conventions’, despite the fact that the assignment opened in this genre. If the
author continued throughout in the third person, they would not have been
able to discuss and evaluate their own values and practices in an authentic
voice, as required, which would in itself have attracted penalties. I would
suggest that the mixture of identities appearing in Rachel’s text arose as
much, if not more, from the requirements of the writing task, which demanded
a combination of highly personal, professional and more theoretical voices,
than from Rachel’s ‘difficulty playing these silly games’ (Ivanič, 1998, p. 168). I
also observed that as social work students are only required to undertake one
such assignment in the first year of study, this is likely to be Rachel’s first (and
very possibly only) attempt at such an assignment in her academic career.
Consequently the writing conventions presented to her in written course
guidance may have differed significantly from any previous academic writing
she had undertaken. These differences would also have been relevant to
Rachel’s self-presentation in her writing, as they would have instructed her to
write in the first person and to interweave practice and personal reflections in
her discussion of theory. This is not to say that Rachel’s identity is not
represented in the text as Ivanič suggests, but that the reasons for this are
121
complex and an understanding of them can also be informed by an
understanding of disciplinary conventions.
This re-analysis of a small element of Ivanič’s work raises some important
issues. It illustrates the importance of insider knowledge and the way in which
such knowledge can alter an interpretation or analysis. The significance of
such insider knowledge also highlights the consequent danger of making
claims about data without reference to subject- or institution-specific
knowledge and also the individual interpretations of participants. Even when a
researcher has such insider knowledge and has attempted to discover
participants’ perspectives, s/he can never be completely sure that their
understanding reflects the truth as interpreted by others.
3.7.2 A sociological approach to writer identity: some
unanswered questions
A fuller understanding of Rachel’s writing, I would suggest, could be gained
through exploring psychosocial influences on her writing, including the three
aspects of writing practices introduced in 2.3 of circularity of actions, human
interaction and emotion. Ivanič recognises the relevance of Rachel’s
emotional world when outlining her case study:
As these details of Rachel’s literacy practices show, an unexpectedly wide range of factors determine what ends up in the written text, Rachel’s particular configuration of practices and feelings are created by the person she is, and determine what she writes as much as the nature of the task itself and the influence of the readers. (Ivanic, 1997, p. 131)
I would agree with this statement, but add that sociological and cognitive
perspectives alone limit the possibilities for exploring the range of factors to
122
which Ivanič alludes. Drawing upon the three aspect of writing practices
(circularity, human interaction and emotion) which I presented in 2.3, Rachel’s
participation in this academic task also involved interaction (actual and
through her thinking processes or fantasies) with her tutor and the institutions
involved (her employer and the university). Such interactions draw in the ways
in which Rachel felt about her writing practices. Her writing may have been
influenced by motivations which were hard to explain or unconscious. It is
through these areas of emotion and unconscious motivations that I will be
exploring whether a psychoanalytic perspective can offer an additional lens
through which to understand more fully experiences such as Rachel’s of
participating in academic writing.
My explorations of Ivanič’s work with Rachel and my own data have
generated two particular unanswered theoretical questions relating to writer
identity:
1. To what degree is the required genre of the discipline influencing
the writer’s identity positions?
2. Do the social identity positions used by Ivanič provide a sufficient
tool to explore the emotional aspect of student writing?
Based on my data I would suggest that these issues are important aspects of
writer identity but I have not found these questions satisfactorily addressed in
current literature on social work writing. In an attempt to open up these
questions, in this thesis I have drawn upon psychological and psychoanalytic
perspectives to identity and applied them to the context of student writing.
These are disciplines that have made major contributions to research and
123
theorising of identity and the self. I will argue that central to all three questions
is the concept of a core self. In focusing on the self, I am attempting to mark a
distinction between the aspects of social identity discussed by Ivanič (1998, p.
24) and the notion of a fixed, inner or core self, explored in some detail below
in 3.8.2.
3.8 Introducing a psychosocial perspective
Ivanič provides an important starting point for exploring identity in writing. My
intention here is to emphasise psychological dimensions of identity not
currently foregrounded in literature on student writing identity, which I believe
contribute to addressing the three questions outlined in the previous section.
Although Ivanič recognises the plurality of identities, little is explained by
sociological approaches to the ways in which such identities are organised or
co-exist within an individual. There are extensive bodies of work in the field of
sociology and psychology relating to ways in which social and personal
identities intersect which I will draw upon in the following section.
3.8.1 Multiplicity and salience
The complexities associated with the workings of multiple identities are
recognised by Ivanič, who identifies not only the multiplicity of identities but
also the contradictions between them and the impact that this has on the
player (Ivanič, 1997, p. 132ff). The discipline of social psychology contributes
the concepts of multiplicity and salience, both of which provide ways to
understand how multiple aspects of identity interact. Deux (1992), in
acknowledging the complexities associated with drawing together the
124
concepts of social and personal identity, suggests that one aspect missing
from much empirical research into aspects of the self is the subjective
meaning attached to objectively prescribed identities and also the range of
meanings that might be associated with a particular category of identity. I
suggest that closely associated with the concept of multiplicity is the notion of
salience. Salience, a concept originated by Bruner (1957), refers to the way in
which identities relocate in the order of prominence depending upon the
specific encounter or circumstances: there has been research interest in
which identities are chronically (or persistently) salient, such as age or
gender, and the ways in which particular identities come to prominence
depending on group characteristics. This provides a useful model for
exploring the ways in which aspects of student social workers’ identities can
influence their writing, drawing upon various personal as well as student and
professional personas.
The paradigm of salience has also been used to explore the experience of
first generation college students in the United States. The term ‘first
generation college’ students or (FGC) is used in the United States to refer to a
particular social group of students who are the first within their families to
move beyond compulsory education. As such this group of students are
considered to share a particular educational need, which could be broadly
associated with the concept of non-traditional students in the UK. FGC
students have been the focus of research to explore the impact of institutional
practices on their identities, again a perspective relevant to non-traditional
students. Orbe (2004) suggests that researchers risk distorting their findings
by artificially foregrounding particular aspects of social identity which may not
125
reflect participants’ own perceptions. This raises the importance of employing
a methodology which enables participants to foreground those aspects of their
identity which they see as relevant, an issue I return to in 4.7.
The concepts of salience and multiplicity assist in explaining the nature of the
self and how the social and personal aspects of identity inter-relate. The work
of researchers such as Frable (1997) and Orbe (2004) highlights the need for
an explanation for differences in what motivates individual’s experiences and
actions in relation to social identities. In the context of student writing this
body of work provides a useful perspective for exploring why certain aspects
of identity might be foregrounded by students in a particular context and why
meanings and experiences of identities vary between students undertaking
parallel tasks.
3.8.2 Identity and the self
Ivanič’s research foregrounds an identity divided between ‘public’ and
‘private’. She refers to the public identities as ‘person, role or persona’ and to
the private identities as ‘identity, self or ethos’ (Ivanič, 1998, p. 10). This
terminology appears to conflate the terms self and identity, and raises some
unanswered questions which I have found problematic in exploring my data.
For example, the autobiographical self could be interpreted as an inner or
fixed identity, but Ivanič is clear that this is not her intended meaning:
This identity they bring with them to writing is itself socially constructed and constantly changing as a consequence of their developing life-history: it is not some fixed, essential ‘real self. (Ivanič, 1998, p. 24) [my emphasis].
126
Ivanič is not explicit about whether she rejects any notion of a fixed, essential
self, and it is this concept that I will explore further, particularly in relation to
motivation, or desire (see discussion in 3.8.4.1). Ivanič also signals, but does
not explain, the workings of the unconscious. This leaves unresolved the
question of what it is; if behaviour can be unconscious (and therefore not
driven by rational, cognitive thought) what is it that motivates such behaviour?
Unconscious motives are recognised as existing by Ivanič (Ivanic, 1997, p.
23) but not developed. Ivanič uses the concept of the ‘sub-conscious’ to
develop Goffman’s concept of the individual moving between social roles. She
suggests that in texts the author switches between the roles defined by
specific discourses. For many writers, however, such behaviour is sub-
conscious and evidenced through social, cognitive and physical practices as
well as moment-by-moment linguistic choices (Ivanič, 1997, p. 99). I want to
consider this issue in some detail, taking a psychoanalytic approach and will
therefore return to it below in 3.8.4. From a theoretical perspective I will
explore some possible alternative explanations of irrational motivation which I
will use in my analysis of the ways in which emotion can have an impact on
student writing (see 8.3.2.3). The importance of recognising both a social and
an inner dimension of who we are (even if they are closely inter-related) is
that avenues of exploration are opened which may be obscure when treating
identity as an entirely social entity; these include the unconscious,
emotionality and motivational drives which became important for explaining
and understanding students’ experiences in my study.
Although Ivanič conflates ‘identity’ and ‘self’, the terms have been used in
social and cognitive psychology to signal very different concepts and
127
perspectives. Deux (1992) provides a useful overview of developments in
thinking on identity and self from social psychological perspectives. In doing
so, she identifies a difference in research foci between the US and Europe,
which shed light on a different treatment of self and identity. Deux typifies
research in the US during the 1970s and 1980s as being concerned with
investigations into specific aspects of ‘self’ which are both abstract and
socially de-contextualised. In Europe and the United Kingdom, there has been
a stronger focus on ‘identities’ located in a social context and in interaction
with groups. Whilst the difference between these approaches is increasingly
blurred (and the influence of social context increasingly central) Deux does
offer a distinction between the self, used in reference to an individual inner-
world focus, and identities as a concept to understand the interplay between
the individual within social groups (Deux, 1992). Deux’s analysis would
suggest that it might be more broadly consistent within social psychology to
use ‘identity’ (rather than Ivanič’s use of ‘self’) to depict social presentation or
roles. This allows the term ‘self’ to be distinguished from identity; a distinction
which (according to Deux) enables a loose mapping of ‘identity’ against the
concepts of ‘social identity’ and ‘self’ against ‘personal identity, which she
argues should be seen as distinct but integrated facets of the whole person.
Although Deux’s analysis is helpful, it would be misleading to suggest that
there is any commonly accepted terminology which makes a clear distinction
between identity and self. The debate is further developed by Hunt and
Sampson (2006) who draw on a wide range of disciplines, including
psychoanalysis, cognitive psychology and philosophy to explore the duality of
the self and its relationship with reflexivity. Hunt and Sampson propose that:
128
A view of the self in process, then – which embraces both the notion of a felt core self arising out of the body and the linguistic self of extended consciousness – may enable us to make sense of a self that is experienced as stable and continuous but is also constantly undergoing a process of change. It can help us understand the body’s role in our sense of self, as well as that of language, culture and experience. (Hunt and Sampson, 2006, p. 21)
Within this quotation are some important principles about identity which I will
return to throughout this thesis. Firstly the concept that the self is a process,
which develops and changes both developmentally and in response to
changing social and interpersonal contexts. Secondly Hunt and Sampson
suggest that who we are involves both a bodily core self and a part which is
social (Deux refers to this aspect as ‘identity’). The core self is associated with
the body as it involves human development, emotion and the unconscious
whilst the social self, or identity, is associated with language through
interaction with both discourse and at a societal and individual level.
Language is central to the self as it:
Enables us to move beyond the awareness of feelings and emotions, which is the realm of the core consciousness, to make our memories more explicit and hold them over time; it enables us to have an extended sense of self in which we observe what we are doing and feeling, so that we can reflect on past experiences and plan how we are going to deal with things in the future. (Hunt and Sampson, 2006, p. 21)
Here Hunt and Sampson suggest that it is language that forms a bridge
between the core self and the outside world, but it is also through language
that the core self can reflect, or in other words make use of experience in
order to respond to current or future events.
In this thesis I will retain the terms identity and identities to refer to aspects of
individuals’ social presentation or roles, reserving the term ‘self’ to refer to the
129
inner or emotional world which represents the most consistent and authentic
aspect of an individual’s psychological being. The following Figure illustrates
my perspective on the individual as ‘containing’ multiple identities. Such
identities may be both contradictory, transient and over-lapping. In an inner
layer lies the core self, the seat of the unconscious and emotionality, which
organises and provides historical continuity.
Figure 16: The Individual, self and identities
The individual Identities
SELF
This is not to imply, however, that the self is created or develops outside the
influence of the social. Rather I concur with Frosh in his suggestion that:
Social factors are constructive…they take the raw material of each individual infant’s basic psychological processes and weld and order it into the shape of a particular structure of consciousness and experience. This socially shaped structure is sometimes called simply ‘I’, sometimes ‘the ego’, most commonly ‘the self’’. Original emphasis (Frosh, 1991, p. 2)
This division of terminology is not intended to indicate that self and identity are
separate, they are treated as inter-related, co-dependant and both socially
mediated. Through chapters 5-7, I hope to illustrate the ways in which the
130
unconscious psychological core self influences writing alongside the more
visible social identities.
3.8.3 Locating the self in writer identity
Research into writer identity, such as that of Ivanič (1996) reflects a more
general trend in which the influence of social context has become increasingly
important in research concerned with identity, to the point that the individual’s
will or emotional world is at risk of being minimised to obscurity by the forces
of discourse and social construction. Layder (2004), whilst recognising the
importance of discourse and social construction in shaping meaning and
guiding action, suggests that:
Self-identity is suffused with feeling and emotion even if individuals attempt to suppress or to stifle their expression. Emotion is the foundation on which every aspect of human behaviour ultimately rests. All our intentions and purposes are coloured by it, especially our attempts to control and influence others. (Layder, 2004, p. 159).
This is a striking statement, particularly as Layder is a sociologist. The view
he offers here shares much with the work of Henriques et al. (1998) and also
Frosh (2002) who propose a theorisation of identity which draws both upon
post-structuralist theories and a critical approach to psychoanalysis. In doing
so, they also reaffirm the centrality of emotion and an inner world for our
understanding of identity and provide an explanation for motivation, or
‘desire’.
Janks (1999; 2002) provides a useful bridge between current research in the
field of writer identity and psychosocial perspectives, as she is a researcher
within the discipline of critical discourse analysis, who has attempted to draw
131
in other disciplines including psychoanalysis. Janks (2002) suggests that
models of critical discourse analysis, as represented by the work of those
within the tradition of Fairclough, restricts our focus to the rational:
What is missing from this model [critical discourse analysis] is the territory beyond reason. The territory of desire and identification, pleasure and play, the taboo and the transgressive; what Giroux calls ‘disturbing pleasures. (Janks, 2002, p. 9)
This recognition of the importance of motivators driven less by conscious
thought and more by elements ‘beyond reason’ again connects with my
interest in unconscious or irrational explanations of student experiences and
actions. Working in the context of secondary education in South Africa, Janks
uses advertisements to investigate the ways in which our responses are not
limited to those of the rational, intellectual mind but are also influenced by our
affective identifications that may be unconscious or irrational. Janks draws on
Freud’s (1916) discussion of jokes and humour to explore the conflicts
between rational and irrational affective responses and why emotion
associated with identification is a forceful influence. Whilst Janks found that it
was not easy to predict the emotive triggers associated with particular texts,
or for individual people, the power of the responses that she noted were
consistently strong and potentially dangerous:
The research produced evidence that when texts or tasks touch something ‘sacred’ to a student, critical analysis is extremely threatening. I came to define as sacred meanings that were constitutive of students’ identities, meaning that if challenged, attacked what one teacher described as ‘the fibre of their belief. (Janks, 2002, p. 22)
Although Janks is (by her own estimation) in the early stages of this work, and
her focus here is not on adult student texts, she raises some fundamental
132
challenges to the ways in which identity and texts have been theorised which
can be applied to student writing. She recognises the relevance of an
irrational, emotional world which is both inextricably linked to identity and a
powerful influence on individuals’ relationships with texts and is equally
applicable to student writing. In fact the quotation above broadens ‘texts’ to
‘texts and tasks’ by which I would suggest that there are a range of
behaviours associated with texts which are equally influenced by ‘the fibre of
belief’ of an individual (Janks, 2002, p. 22), including thinking in preparation of
texts, reading, assessing, re-reading or responding to feedback in association
with a specific text. These acts encompass what I am referring to as writing
practices (see 2.3). Janks restricts her analysis to a discussion of identity and
identification, but does not attempt to locate emotional identification or indeed
to explain the relationships between the rational and emotional self. In order
to take forward her conception of a powerful, irrational aspect of identity, a
clearer understanding of the self, or an individual’s irrational world, is needed.
In this thesis I offer some examples of the complexity of the self and the
contribution that this broader conceptualisation could offer (see chapter 7).
Another bridge is provided by the work of Creme (2003) discussed in 2.5.2. in
her work on using Winnicott’s (1971) concept of ‘play’ to encourage
emotional, intuitive and creative aspects of student thinking. Creme and Janks
provide an important contribution, however, by placing psychoanalytic thinking
on the map for those researching from an academic literacy perspective and
who are focusing on writer identity in particular.
133
3.8.4 Psychoanalytic approaches to identity
In order to develop a model of identity in student writing which takes account
of the inner-world, I have drawn upon the work of Henriques et al. (1998) and
Frosh (1991; 2002). These works provide a model for understanding writer
identity which takes account of psychoanalytic thinking. In their post-
structuralist analysis, Henriques et al. share many essential principles with
Ivanič (1998) such as recognition of subjectivity, discourse and power as
cornerstones to understand not only interaction between individuals or groups
but also the relationship between the individual and institutions as discussed
above. This perspective is particularly important for my thesis in that it
recognises the privileged nature of particular discourses, such as those
dominant in the academy or discipline, as well as the influence of agency and
structure. As I identified in 1.1.1, Henriques et al. provide a critical theorisation
of psychoanalysis in the context of post-structuralist society, which enables
them to connect multiple and changing social identities with the concept of an
inner self which is relatively consistent and which is the source of motivation
and affective response.
Henriques et al. (1998) provide a detailed and comprehensive review of the
contribution that social psychology has made to our understanding of
subjectivity. They challenge the value of framing an understanding of the
subject within the individual–society dualism, referred to above in 3.8.2, in
relation to Deux’s (1992; 2004) analysis of social and personal identities,
through a rigorous critique of developmental psychology, radical humanism,
socialization, cognitive theory and social role theory, including the work of
Goffman (1963; 1967; 1969). The authors suggest that not only is such
134
dualism unhelpful, but that in proposing multiple social selves, none of these
approaches have satisfactorily addressed the question of a unifying or
constant self that could combine, direct or select such disparate roles.
In representing Henriques et al.’s work I have adopted their specific use of the
term ‘subject’, however, the authors recognise that the concept of the subject
should be distinguished from the ‘individual’ as the individual may in fact have
multiple potentially conflicting subject positions, so subject and individual are
not coterminous. It is the recognition of the influence of such diverse,
conflictual and historically shifting subject positions that make the
conceptualisation of a unitary rational subject unsustainable. Henriques et al.
draw upon a critical approach to psychoanalytic theory (in particular the work
of Lacan), which they link to their perspective on subject positions based upon
power-knowledge relations. Importantly, this analysis has not only provided an
explanation for the emotional worlds of the individual, one of the central areas
of interest for me arising from exploring reflective writing in particular
(discussed in 2.5.2) but also contributed to my understanding of ‘motivational
dynamics’ (Henriques et al., 1998, p. 205), or the ways in which individuals
are positioned, or position themselves, in discourses (the possibilities for
which are explored in 7.6 and 8.3.2.).
Following their broad critique, Henriques et al. propose a number of traps to
be avoided in attempting to theorise identity:
Our critique indicates what traps must be avoided in an alternative approach: cognitivism, positing a unitary individual or a rational intentional being as a point of origin, reducing the social to intersubjective, and assuming that individual and society are commensurate as theoretical notions’. (Henriques, et al., 1998, p. 24)
135
In effect this critique suggests that there are fundamental difficulties with
theories of identity arising from a wide range of approaches stemming from
social psychology, which are mirrored in socially orientated research on
identity in writing. These difficulties include the lack of a theory of unifying self,
the presumption of human thought and behaviour being wholly conscious and
rational, and the unhelpful divide between social and individual (or personal)
identities. These three factors are the primary focus of my interest in
questioning current perspectives on academic writing in relation to identity.
3.8.4.1 Desire and the unconscious
Through a critical analysis of psychoanalytic theory, drawing heavily upon
feminist perspectives such as those of Mitchell and Rose (1982), Henriques et
al. draw upon the concept of ‘desire’, developed by Lacan (1964) which they
incorporate into their theory of ‘power-knowledge relations’ proposing the
revised formulation of ‘power-desire-knowledge’. The concept of desire
provides an explanation for individuals’ motivation, which does not rely upon
cognitive explanations and is a core concept in Lacanian psychoanalysis.
Lacan suggests that desire is ‘the essence of man’ (Lacan, 1964, p. 275). In
very simple terms desire is the motivation within us to satisfy unmet wishes or
needs (although Lacan does not use the term ‘need’ as he associates it with
only biologically driven or instinctual requirements), and such needs are
experienced emotionally rather than cognitively. Lacan’s concept of desire is
closely associated with inter-relationships as he proposes that individuals look
to others to satisfy their desires. Importantly desire is unconscious, cannot be
fully articulated in speech and can never be entirely fulfilled (Evans, 1996, p.
37).
136
The concept of desire is used by Henriques et al., (1998) to explain the
motivational core (or self), which can explain an individual’s apparently
irrational, unconscious and contradictory experiences and behaviour. Desire
therefore is both a product of and a contributor to discourses and the nature of
an individual’s desires will reflect such discourses. The following quotation
relates to the authors’ research focusing on gender:
The content of desire, then, is neither timeless nor arbitrary, but has a historical specificity. We are suggesting that its production can be understood in terms of the emergence of particular discusive practices. Similarly, particular anxieties, phobias, depressions and so forth become comprehensible when seen in relation to practices which produce particular norms and positions for women. (Henriques et al., 1998, p. 222)
Henriques et al. therefore locate the concept of desire within evolving
discoursal relations, rather than as a fixed feature. In this context they critique
the discourse relating to the satisfaction of Oedipal fantasies6. In doing so, the
authors address some of the criticisms directed at Freudian analysis (such as
his bourgeois cultural determinism, anti-feminist implications and normative
6 Oedipal fantasies refers to the psychoanalytic theory of the oedipal complex, a desire for
sexual involvement with the parent of the opposite sex and a sense of rivalry with the parent
of the same sex. This term originated from Sigmund Freud (1899) and is derived from the
mythological Oedipus, who killed his father and married his mother; its female analogue being
the Electra complex. The Oedipal complex is considered by psychoanalysts working in the
Freudian tradition to be a normal stage in the development of children ages three to five,
which ends when the child identifies with the parent of the same sex and represses its sexual
instincts.
137
position) by acknowledging selectivity and a focus upon subversive aspects of
psychoanalysis which are consistent with their radical perspective, such as
those proposed by Lacan (1977), discussed in 3.5.
Desire thus formulated is contradictory, unconscious and transient. This helps
to explain contradictions in experiences of individuals between positions
which are supported cognitively but resisted in desire. Henriques et al. (1998)
provide an example of women who identify with and support feminist
discourses relating to the subjugation of women through motherhood, whilst
desiring not only a child but motherhood itself. A simple example in the
context of student writing might be a student whose actions appear irrational
or to contradict their understanding of what is expected of them within the
context of institutional discourses but are in fact consistent with the student
meeting her own (perhaps irrational) emotional needs. The contradictions
resulting from conflicts between desire and discourses are the site for
complex interactions where, Henriques et al., suggest, a Kleinian7 account of
defence mechanisms (ways to protect ourselves from unconscious threat) can
be played out. The authors suggest that these only operate interpersonally (in
the communication between individuals) and also that feelings about one
event may be transferred to another less threatening event. Student anxiety is
a significant feature in this thesis, which makes Henriques et al.’s discussion
7 Kleinian refers to the influential work of (and work developed from) Melanie Klein, a
twentieth century Austrian child psychoanalyst
138
of defence mechanisms particularly relevant, and one which I will explore in
8.3.2.2.
Henriques et al. focus on interpersonal relationships, for example between
men and women, where discourses are played out. In such discourses
imbalances of power are also important but they can also be paralleled with
similarly unbalanced power relations between student and tutor with additional
aspects of identity overlaid (such as gender, class and ethnicity). The authors
suggest that their formulation of desire has a close association with power
and that it takes on a more variable form in that it is no longer located within a
single subject position, but will vary its location across conflicting and
changing discourses. This means that one individual may be variously
positioned as more or less powerful in relation to another depending upon the
context and associated discourses. This creates a dissonance:
…such simultaneous positionings of power and powerlessness produce anxiety states resulting from distress at such contradiction, and the consequent desire for wholeness, unitariness. (Henriques et al. 1998, p. 225)
To summarise, Henriques et al. provide a challenging theoretical framework.
Through theorising and analysis, they propose a model for understanding
both the individual experience and human interaction which draws upon both
post-structuralist perspectives on discourse and subjectivity and upon a
critical perspective on psychoanalysis. This power-desire-knowledge
perspective proposes that the individual’s actions and experiences are
determined by desire; desire is the root of affect and motivation, which
addresses the fragmentation and dislocation implied by identifications which
are not associated with a concept of the self. In doing so Henriques et al. offer
139
some helpful concepts to complement Ivanič’s theorisation of writer identity,
such as those of projection, introjection and splitting (1957).
These 3 notions of projection, introjection and splitting, all arising from
Freudian approaches to identity development, explored Klein (Klein, et al.,
2003). She proposes that early infant experiences result in individuals
developing to varying degrees the ability to emotionally integrate both good
and bad aspects of the self. A healthy development enables individuals to
recognise and incorporate good and bad aspects of the self, and in turn to
manage relationships with others that involve both positive and negative
feelings. Where it is difficult to assimilate good and bad, splitting takes place,
a term Klein uses to describe the process of separating good and bad aspects
of the self or aspects of another person (Klein, 1957, p. 24). Klein suggests
that in early life splitting is essential in order for an infant to achieve
integration of good and bad in the long term. As emotionally healthy adults,
however, there is an increasing ability to manage good and bad alongside
each other. Introjection, closely associated with identification, is the process
by which esteemed others (or aspects of them) are drawn within the
individual. Projection is a process whereby (usually negative) aspects of the
self are experienced as being located within someone else. Introjection and
projection are both processes arising from splitting. The processes of
projection and introjection are closely associated with defence mechanisms.
Defence mechanisms enable us to manage emotionally difficult situations.
Such defence mechanisms may not be conscious and are associated with
emotional resilience (Copley et al., 1997). This concept enables us to link
identity with responses to emotionally sensitive experiences. I will be drawing
140
upon these concepts in an attempt to understand some of the apparently
irrational perspectives of participating students and the ways in which they
offer their own interpretations of their interactions with tutors (see chapter 7
and 8.3.2.)
3.9 Conclusion
This chapter brings together theorisations on identity which have been
influential on the development of this thesis. The foundational work of
Althusser (1969) and Foucault (1972; 1979), working from an
acknowledgement of power relations, provided a perspective on the ways in
which subjects’ identities are formed through their relationships to institutions
and institutional ideologies. Althusser and Foucault shared a concern primarily
for class-based inequalities, and more recent work by, amongst others, Sarup
(1996) and Hall (1996; 2001) has developed a post-structuralist theorisation of
identity to encompass the complexity of social identification. Hall in particular
offers an important contribution to our understanding of not only identity but
communicative acts. Fairclough’s (1992) use of post-structuralist ideas
creates a link with communicative acts and the creation of texts which have
stimulated important research, such as that of Ivanič (1997), who has applied
post-structuralist perspectives on identity specifically to student writing.
Ivanič’s work, however, has provided a framework which draws on more than
just a post-structuralist perspective. Her sociological approach to identity
critically applies Goffman’s social role theory (Goffman, 1969) together with
social constructionism to student writing though a combination of detailed
textual analysis and student writer interviews.
141
Ivanič’s work is an important landmark in researching student writing and
identity, and this chapter has provided a critical summary of her work, and to
which I introduce three additional layers. Firstly, I draw upon my own
particular disciplinary ‘insider’ experience to question institutional practices in
social work education and student writing. Secondly I introduce psychological
and psychoanalytic perspectives on identity to draw in important debates
relating to identity including the co-existence of multiplicity and salience.
Thirdly, drawing on the psychoanalytically based work of Frosh (2002) and
Henriques et al. (1998), I explore the nature of the ‘self’ (as opposed to
identity or identities) and the motivational forces which underlie it. Together
the psychological and psychoanalytic perspectives provide a conceptual
model to explore particular aspects of student writing including motivation, the
unconscious and emotionality. It is this combined theorisation that I illustrate
and explore in the following chapters.
142
4. Chapter Four: Methodology
4.1 Introduction
This chapter outlines the methodology used in the study on which this thesis
is based and discusses the ways in which it has been adopted to explore the
research questions, outlined in the introduction. The sources of data are
identified and an outline provided of where particular data are used within the
thesis. An explanation and discussion is then provided of how the data was
collected and analysed. Within my discussion of data collection I consider the
challenges involved in recruiting and involving participants, in particular
students, and issues around consent. One of the primary sources of data in
this thesis are student interviews and I present here an extensive discussion
focusing on the issues and methods involved in interviewing in the context of
written texts, including a summary of the transcription methods used. In the
second half of this chapter I address the analysis of data, including the use of
case studies, the concept of defended subjects, the influence of progressive
focusing and an outline of research informing my analysis of the use of first
person singular pronouns.
4.2 The research questions: exploring student
writing
As indicated in chapter 1, my research questions have evolved from an
original set of working hypotheses, which arose from my experience as a
social work and educational practitioner. My understanding of the complexity
143
and multi-dimensional aspects of ‘student writing’ also developed as I began
to read the literature, developing the three core hypotheses outlined in the
introduction:
1. There are significant differences in the requirements of student
academic writing between courses within a single social work
programme such as the one studied.
2. The specific nature of the writing task influences both the way in
which students engage with academic writing and also the feedback
dialogue between tutor and student.
3. The identity of student and tutor are important factors in student
writing
These hypotheses were the basis of my first set of research questions
(outlined in 1.3). During and after completing the first set of interviews,
however, I reflected upon the original set of questions and undertook a
revision to sharpen my research questions based upon my deepening
understanding of the issues and familiarisation with a broader literature. The
final set of questions were as follows:
In the context of a distance learning social work education programme
(specifically the programme studied):
1. What differences exist in the requirements and expectations of
different kinds of assessed texts written by students, such as
reflective writing and the form of applied social science essay?
144
2. How does the specific nature of the writing task influence students’
and tutors’ engagement with academic writing?
3. How does student identity influence the experience and practice of
different kinds of student writing?
These questions underpinned my second set of interviews and drove my
analysis of not only the interviews but of related data sources discussed in
this chapter. There is further discussion of how my research questions
evolved and informed my interviewing in 4.11.
4.3 Gaining access to students
The primary source of data for this research has been interviews with
students about their texts. The first challenge posed in setting up my research
was therefore to gain access to students.
4.3.1 Engaging student involvement
This study has relied upon students being willing to participate in interviews in
which they shared and discussed assessed texts with me. I was aware that
this demanded a high level of trust in me as a researcher. I was also aware
that for any student who had any anxiety or lacked confidence in their writing,
the thought of discussing shared texts could be uncomfortable and
threatening. Elbow (1998) explores the anxieties raised for inexperienced
writers in sharing their words on paper, even in the context of reading aloud to
a friend. Sharing our writing with others in the context of assessment,
feedback or judgement can be even more intimidating. The difference in roles
between the potential participants and me may have acted as an additional
145
inhibitor. Although I presented myself as a ‘research student’, I was not only a
lecturer and qualified social worker but also a ‘familiar name’ to many
students as a member of academic staff. All the students who eventually
participated in the study, as employment-based students, worked for one local
authority social services department with whom I had worked closely, both
tutoring previous student cohorts and undertaking a pilot study. I was
therefore ‘known’ by reputation or personal contact to many of the students,
the training officer and local university staff. This prior contact was important
in building up a degree of trust and understanding of the relevance of this
research which facilitated obtaining permission.
4.3.2 Consent
In social work, consent to draw upon the work of social services, even
indirectly, can be problematic due to the sensitivity of third party information
and the expectations of confidentiality relating to service users. Consent was
therefore required from the students themselves, the local authority who
employed them, the University’s student ethics committee and also the
University’s Social Work Department. Permission was also obtained from the
tutors8 of the participating students. Consent was dependant upon
agreements to anonymise not only students’ identities but also the service
8 Although the participating students shared one practice learning tutor, they belonged to one
of four foundation course tutor groups. This meant that as marked texts were used from both
of these courses, permission was needed from 5 tutors in all.
146
users who appeared both in students’ texts and in interviews. Mention of
specific service users was particularly relevant in the practice learning course
where students were required to discuss examples of their work with service
users during practice learning placements. I was not able to consult or seek
permission from service users featuring in students’ writing, so absolute
anonymity was essential. Written permission from students was therefore
sought for the use of texts and also for participation in the interviews.
Permission for audio recording the interviews was sought at the beginning of
each interview.
4.3.3 The group studied
As outlined in 1.8, I based my study on a single tutorial group of social work
students. The group selected were all employed in a multi-cultural conurbation
of the West Midlands. The membership of this group was diverse in its
representation of gender, cultural and educational background and ethnicity,
discussed in more detail in 1.8. These students were studying on a national
programme with over a thousand students who are widely geographically
dispersed. This meant that it would not have been possible to speak with all
students in a face-to-face meeting and I was not confident that other options
for contact (such as electronic communication or requests made in paper
communication sent to all students) would effectively engage participants. It
was for this reason that one specific tutor group was targeted, and face-to-
face contact was made with this group only.
I made initial contact with students via their practice learning course tutor, to
whom I gave a written outline of the project which he discussed with the
147
group, providing photo-copies for students to take home (Appendix 1). This
letter foregrounded language diversity, as I had initially hoped to explore this
aspect of identity and experience on student writing. This initial contact was
followed up with a face-to-face visit to the whole tutor group (all but one
student was present) at which I was able to talk to students directly about the
research and answer their questions. The project was presented to all
potential participants as being about their own writing and identity, in
particular their experiences of writing both in the past and on the current
courses of study. At this meeting all fifteen students were given a consent
form; all agreed to their texts being used and eight agreed to participate in
interviews.
4.4 The process of data collection
The main period of data collection took place from January 2001 to December
2001, a period which coincided with one full year’s study for students on the
Diploma in Social Work programme. Course materials and associated guides
were obtained directly from the University just prior to the beginning of the
year of study. An additional period of data collection took place in September
2002, when I recorded a telephone discussion with a group of three
experienced practice learning tutors, which from hereon I refer to as the ‘tutor
discussion’.
4.4.1 Summary of data collected
The data which I have used for this thesis, in summary, focuses on:
1. The course materials and associated written guidance
148
2. The tutors
3. The students
The data include:
The course materials and associated written guidance
• Full course materials from the foundation course and practice learning
course. This included written and audio recorded learning materials
representing a total of 900 hours of study in addition to guidance
aimed at students and tutors
• All study advice (online and paper) available to this cohort of students.
The tutors
• Audio recording and full transcript of a telephone discussion with 3
experienced practice learning course tutors, based upon an
anonymised marking exercise using two practice learning course
student texts (duration of approx 1hr 30 minutes).
The students
• Interviews and selective transcription and notes from interviews with 8
students, a total of 15 interviews of approx 1 hour each.
• Student texts from two courses, two each from the 10 students
studying the foundation course and one each from the 15 students
studying the practice learning course, a total of 35 student texts.
149
4.4.2 Interviews with students
Student interviews based around specific texts formed the most substantial
form of data used in this study. From the 15 students participating, 8 were
interviewed; the remaining students only gave permission to use their texts.
Two interviews were undertaken with the 8 participants. In total over fifteen
hours of interview data were collected. The following table illustrates those
students who were interviewed and which texts they contributed:
Figure 17: Student interviews
Student Interviewed Data collected 1 No All texts
2 No Practice-learning course text only
3 Yes All texts
4 Yes All texts
5 No Practice-learning course text only
6 No All texts
7 No Practice-learning course text only
8 Yes All texts
9 Yes All texts
10 No All texts
11 Yes All texts
12 No Practice-learning course text only
13 Yes All texts
14 Yes All texts
15 No Non participant
16 Yes Practice-learning course text
Contact was maintained between these interview sessions by phone or email.
I conducted all of the interviews myself in a location of the student’s choice,
which included their own home and place of work. The first interview took
150
place within the first third of the academic year, the second following
approximately 10 weeks later. Both interviews were semi-structured and
lasted between 45 and 90 minutes.
The 8 students interviewed were sent planned outlines of the three interviews
(Appendix 2). The aim of the first meeting was to explore students’ language
and educational histories and to set up a relationship through which students
felt able to reflect on their experiences of writing. Participants were asked to
think about their writing of the most recent essay prior to the meeting. The
majority of students were prepared and very keen to start talking about their
texts and current writing tasks. One example of this was Patricia (student 13),
who within the first third of the first interview introduced her anxiety about
putting pen to paper on her current courses of study and also her frustration
with her practice learning tutor’s feedback that she should be ‘more personal’
in her assignment. It is possible that, having asked participants to be prepared
to discuss their texts, this was their primary expectation despite also being
told that we would talk about their language and educational experiences.
The second and third interviews did not in fact take place as planned; I
revised my methodology after the first interview in order to reduce the number
of interviews from 3 down to 2. I took this decision in response to the length
and detailed nature of the first interview and students’ concern about the
amount of time that they could spare. Consequently I decided to conflate
interviews 2 and 3, which also had the advantage of enabling me to adopt a
comparative approach to the practice learning and the foundation courses
rather than discussing each course separately. The original set of interview
151
questions was sent to students with a covering letter, which encouraged
participants to think about the focus of each interview in advance so that they
could introduce issues to the discussion which concerned them. This was an
attempt to include the students in the construction of knowledge by enabling
them to have forewarning of the topics that I was interested in as well as
providing them with an opportunity to think in advance about issues that they
wanted to raise. Based upon my experience of the first interviews, I amended
the style of questions (Appendix 3) to encourage students to think about
experiences that they may wish to share associated with ‘issues’ rather than
answers to questions. I hoped that this approach would result in greater
interviewee participation. As indicated in chapter 1 and discussed further
below in 4.7, my intention was to facilitate interviewer participation in the
interviews, however this was limited by several issues in relation to the design
of the methodology, the way in which the interviews were conducted and the
data analysed. This will be discussed further in 4.9.
The revised second interview questions (Appendix 4) reflected a re-focusing
of the research questions, in part based upon my experience of undertaking
the first set of interviews. I wanted to present the questions in an open way so
as to encourage students to introduce their own ideas and issues, but I also
wanted to introduce a comparative discussion of the writing on the two
courses studied and retain a clear focus on the research questions. The
second interviews, therefore, aimed to explore:
152
1. Students’ comparative perspective on the practice learning and the
foundation courses, including their understanding of the written
guidance provided.
2. Discussion of the experience of tutor feedback.
3. More specific exploration of reflective writing including the use of
self-disclosure and also authoritative sources.
My intention was that the student and I could draw upon the shared
experience and knowledge which had been built up from the first interview
which I hoped would provide a space for exploration of issues initiated by
either party. By this point in the course students were in a position to reflect
on the experience of writing for both courses.
4.4.3 Transcription and note making of interviews
I recorded all interviews on audio-cassette, with the permission of participants.
I then played back and listened to each recording as soon after the interview
as possible and took brief notes outlining any themes arising from the
interviews. I listed these themes (see Appendix 5) and then tabulated each of
them across all of the participants to make any common themes more visible.
One illustration is provided on the theme of emotion (see Appendix 6). The
analysis of this data is discussed further in 4.8 below. My transcription and
note taking involved drawing up four data columns (see Appendix 10). The
first summarised the main points of discussion, the second contained small
sections of word-for-word transcription and the third noted links between
transcribed discussion and a particular section of student text. The final
153
column was a space for my own comment or reflection, for example making
notes of connections with themes or issues of interest. This was particularly
important while my final research questions crystallised and I began analysis
of the interview data. Returning to the audio-recordings enabled me to
transcribe and note take in more detail those sections as I became aware of
their significance to the themes or research questions. Columns noting the
counter point on the recording preceded the first and second data columns,
enabling me to rewind and review specific sections of the interview.
In the detailed sections of transcription (column two) I followed some
transcription conventions, shown in the following key:
KEY
P: Initial of person speaking [laughs] Transcriber’s additional observations … Break in flow of conversation Bold Indicates link to a student text
In addition to these broad conventions I also added some punctuation, based
upon my comprehension of the interviewees’ speech to assist the reader.
These conventions and punctuation were used to give a slightly fuller picture
of the dialogue and to make overt any sections of text where the meaning had
been influenced by non-verbal communication, such as pauses, laughter or
the demonstration of emotion through body language. This kind of non-verbal
communication is difficult to capture with an audio-recording and written
transcription, so appears sometimes within the transcription, such as
‘[laughter]’, and sometimes in my commentary notes.
154
4.4.4 Talk with students in the context of texts
Whilst the interviews were semi-structured and allowed for participants to
contribute to the direction of discussion, they also took place in the context of
specific texts. This method of text-based interviewing, influenced by the
research of Ivanič (1997) and Lillis (2001), enabled both interviews to focus
upon the texts (and feedback comments) produced by the participant but
about which I, as interviewer, also had knowledge. As a result, texts provided
a common reference point around which discussion took place. Making direct
reference to texts (by both the participant and me) as suggested by Ivanič,
provided rich data.
However interesting and complex the writing process may appear in theory, the observations of writers themselves are even more interesting and reveal even greater complexity. (Ivanic, 1997, p. 115)
Participants used the texts, particularly the tutor feedback written comments,
to support and illustrate their discussion, and occasionally read out tutor
comments aloud. For example, ‘Patricia’, who felt frustration at the
discrepancy between her tutor’s comments and his grade, stated as follows:
I mean the comments that [practice learning course tutor] has made in this, I mean he has made some lovely comments and I was really quite encouraged but I felt that his comments were so good yet the mark was 67% and I felt disappointed with that you know. I felt that the mark didn’t really reflect the comments [laughter]. I mean in his comments he talks about you know that I had [reading] ‘worked hard to produce an essay that is honest reflective thought provoking, flows well, follows the structure, well laid out, cases are very powerful’ and in the end ‘all in all a very powerful read Patricia well done- 67% [laughs] P1: Patricia interview: 14th June 2001
This list of positive comments on Patricia’s text feedback (honest, reflective,
thought provoking, flows well, follows the structure, well laid out, cases are
155
very powerful) appeared to Patricia to contradict the grade received, which
she considered mediocre. Patricia’s direct reading from her text provided a
shared focus for both of us, as interviewer and interviewee, through which she
could provide an insight into her interpretation of the tutor’s practices.
Patricia’s interpretation of her tutor’s comments provide genuine data
evidencing her experience, but the existence of the text itself also opens up
the possibility of analysing possible alternative interpretations of the tutor
practices. These possibilities were explored through the tutor discussion
discussed in 4.4.7. Text based interviews enabled me to explore both student
writing and tutor comments with students in the interviews. Lillis (2001, p. 6)
refers to ‘talk around texts’ to illustrate the importance of exploring texts within
their wider context, or ‘real-world settings’, positioning her as a:
Participant-observer of their [the students’] experience of engaging in academic writing alongside the collection and analysis of numerous kinds of texts related to their writing (course guidance on essay writing, departmental feedback and advice sheets, tutors written comments) …the emphasis is on exploring literacy in real-world settings (Lillis, 2001, p. 6)
Here Lillis illustrates the significance of not only exploring texts through talk
with students, but also of drawing in tutor comments, course guidance and
wider departmental guidance, all of which have an impact on the individual
students’ writing. Therefore, the student texts, along with the course texts and
tutor feedback all contribute to creating a context through which I could
explore the experience of participating in academic writing tasks with the
student. Some of the data sources were common to all students (such as the
course related guidance) but the students’ texts, relationships with individual
tutors and experiences of engaging writing were unique. The resulting
156
research lens provides a kaleidoscope in which a small part of the picture may
remain static whilst other parts change, the overall picture transforming very
slightly with each turn. Such turns of this kaleidoscopic lens are important in
order to capture the unique experiences of individuals whilst also broader
common themes remain more constant.
4.4.5 Student texts
A total of 35 texts were collected and analysed from the two courses in the
study, the practice learning course and the foundation course. Students
completed permission slips which enabled texts to be copied and released
centrally from the University. This enabled the student and me to have access
to the marked texts prior to each interview. Once written permission had been
obtained from students, marked texts were accessed directly from the
University’s assignment handling office, where they were copied prior to being
returned to students. Only one assignment (of three) was released from the
practice learning course as the second assignment requested was an
examined assignment and could not therefore be released. Both of the
requested texts from the foundation course were released (from a total of 7).
All of the texts had been marked and contained extensive tutor comments as
well as a summative grade. Texts were received from 15 out of 16 students.
157
Figure 18: Texts collected
Student Foundation course texts
Practice learning course texts
1 2 1
2 0 1
3 2 1
4 2 1
5 0 1
6 2 1
7 0 1
8 2 1
9 2 1
10 0 1
11 2 1
12 0 1
13 2 1
14 2 1
15 Non participant
16 0 1
Total 20 15
NB: The students are referred to here by number as pseudonyms have only
been used for those students who form case studies for this thesis. Those
students on whom case study material is presented have been highlighted,
and can be identified as follows:
4 = Pamela 8 = David 13 = Patricia 16 = Bernie
In addition to the texts themselves, data has included the feedback and
comments on students’ work written by tutors. All of the students shared the
158
same tutor for the practice learning course but not for the foundation course.
Differences in their experiences of feedback both across the courses and
between tutors have provided insight into the process of participating in
assessed writing. A simple tabulation was used to compile summary
comments on texts for both courses for those students who were interviewed
(Appendix 7).
4.4.6 Course materials
Teaching on the programme studied was delivered through a combination of
face-to-face tutorials and workshops, practice learning in the workplace and
multi-media distance learning materials, referred to here as the course
materials. Students involved in this study were participating in the first level of
the Diploma in Social Work and consequently following two courses, the
practice learning course and the foundation course. The curriculum
components for each course were as follows:
Figure 19: Summary of course materials
Foundation course Practice learning course
Written learning materials
7 Blocks of study (approx 1330 pages in total)
1 Block of study, a practice learning guide workshop guide and Aids to Practice cards (Approx 370 pages)
Audio learning materials
Approx 3 hours 2 hours
Video learning materials
Approx 2 hours None
Set books Two (The Good Study Guide and Understanding Health and Social Care: an Introductory Reader)
None
159
Tutorials / workshops
20 hours total 28 hours total
Practice learning None 60 days
Total hours of study 600 hours 600 hours
The main focus of data analysis was on the supplementary guidance provided
to students and tutors for the completion and assessment of written work and
detailed as in Figure 20:
Figure 20: Course guides
Text Pages Course
Assignment Book 27 pages Practice learning course
Programme Guide 60 pages Practice learning course
Tutor Guide 76 pages Practice learning course
Tutor Guide 68 pages Foundation course
Introduction and study guide
22 pages Foundation course
Assignment Book 32 pages Foundation course
While all of the data collected informed the analysis, the thesis developed
here is constructed around these four case studies. The use of case studies is
discussed further in 4.11.2.
4.4.7 Telephone interviewing
As part of the process of progressive focusing (see 4.11.1), early examination
of the data from students, their texts and the course materials in relation to the
research questions indicated that the tutor perspective was an essential one.
160
This was because students were consistently referring to the comments made
on their texts and questioning tutors’ interpretation of both their writing and the
course guidance. Written comments on student texts alone would not provide
sufficient insight into tutors’ perspectives and expectations of student writing
nor the implicit conventions associated with student writing on the practice
learning course in particular. I had intended to recruit the course tutors of the
students studied, which would have enabled me to explore specific
interpersonal issues raised by students relating to identity, but this
unfortunately proved impossible for the individual tutors concerned. Therefore,
as an alternative I invited three tutors, experienced in teaching, assessing and
moderating the practice learning course, to participate in an anonymous
marking exercise and discussion, which was audio recorded and was
transcribed. This aspect of data collection was funded by the practice learning
course and had the dual function that the data would be made available for
the purpose of evaluating the assessment strategy on the course.
Consequently payment was available to tutors to encourage participation, and
a letter sent out to participants outlining the task (Appendix 8). The marking
exercise was based upon two anonymised practice-learning course texts
drawn from the main sample. The texts were retyped and clean (they did not
have any comments or grades attached to them). Each tutor marked and
commented on both texts and returned copies to me prior to the conference to
minimise the degree of peer group influence. The tutor discussion was set up,
as far as possible, to mimic the methodology of the individual student
interviews. A loosely structured set of questions was prepared to guide the
discussion and the tutors (see Appendix 9), as had the students, shared the
161
common experience of engaging with the same text, albeit from the
perspective of assessor and teacher rather than student writer. Beyond this
the tutors brought diverse experiences and their own beliefs, identities and
perspectives to the interview and the method of questioning, as with the
students, encouraged interviewees to participate in developing understanding
with the interviewer by contributing their ideas within the limitations of the
interview structure. The main difference in the tutor discussion, however, was
that there was the possibility of group interaction and discussion.
4.4.8 Study advice
Students participating in this study had access to a range of study advice,
including specific reference to writing, some of which was course specific and
some of which was generic. The most extensive source of guidance was from
within the foundation course and consisted of integrated study notes and
exercises throughout the course. A set study skills book supported these
study notes. In addition students could access paper and online ‘toolkits’,
each focusing on a different aspect of study skills, such as ‘Essay and report
writing skills’, ‘Reading and note taking’ and ‘Effective use of English’. The
‘Effective use of English’ toolkit was adapted as an online website specifically
for students studying the foundation course.
4.5 Where the data has been used
Chapters 5, 6 and 7 contain discussion of the data gathered focusing on three
broad areas; each chapter relies on slightly different combinations of data
sources. Chapter 5 is concerned with the purpose and guidance given on
162
each of the two written tasks undertaken by students on the practice learning
course and the foundation course. The data used are the written guidance
provided on each course to students and tutors, university-wide writing
support resources, such as online toolkits, student interviews and texts and
the tutor discussion. Chapter 6 explores the ways in which reflection and
identity are drawn upon in each of the courses and draws upon the text
orientated student interviews and the texts themselves, including tutor text
comments. The Chapter 7 focuses on the ways in which identity impacts on
students’ writing experiences; it draws primarily upon the text orientated
student interviews, with some use of tutor text comments. In relation to the
research questions, the data has been used in the following way:
Figure 21: Tabulation of data against the research questions
What are the requirements and expectations of different kinds of student writing?
How do prior experiences (personal and educational) impact on the experience and practice of student writing?
How do student and tutor identities influence different kinds of student writing?
Chapters 5 and 6 Chapters 6 and 7 Chapter 6 and 7
Course guidance Student interviews Student interviews
Tutor telephone discussion Student texts Student texts
Student interviews Tutor text comments Tutor comments
Student texts Tutor telephone discussion
Tutor comments
163
4.6 A psychologically informed approach to
interviewing
The research interview, a central focus for enquiry in this study, needs to
reflect the epistemological and broader methodological frame of my study.
The particular theoretical perspectives that I have found helpful in exploring
individual experiences in interviewing derive broadly from psychology and
psychoanalysis and are explored in some depth here.
4.6.1 Epistemological perspective
It has been suggested, for example by Kvale (1996), that there are three
levels of theorisation required when undertaking research: ontological,
epistemological and methodological and that these three levels are
connected. My ontological starting point, influenced by feminist researchers
such as Reinharz (1992), Scott (1985) and Lather (1991), involves the
recognition of social diversity, unequal power relations and the importance of
knowledge as social construction and subject relations. This world view leads
on to an epistemological position which legitimates a post structuralist
approach to knowledge creation rather than drawing upon a positivist
suggestion of the existence of common eternal truths. The acceptance of
such truths in the context of researching human experiences inevitably relies
upon the existence of a degree of consensus, even if only amongst groupings,
sections or subdivisions of society. My intention throughout the design, data
collection and analysis has been to move away from positivist methodologies.
The concept of ‘Discourse’, for example, as a concept and research
164
paradigm, has been relevant from a tradition of discourse analysis which
recognises the inevitability of partiality. Taylor (2001) suggests that;
… the complexity and also the dynamic nature of the social world means that a researcher can seldom make confident predictions about it…no single neutral truth is possible in the social sciences because these involve the study of other people who have their own viewpoints…there are multiple realities and therefore multiple truths. (Taylor in Wetherell et al., 2001, p. 14)
This quotation illustrates how the diversity of participants’ identities and
experiences are as important as any commonalities and as such are explicit
foci of study.
Taking diversity of individual experiences as a starting point to explore human
experiences, however leads the researcher into the area of phenomenology,
placing an emphasis upon the importance of realities as experienced or
perceived by individuals. This does not deny the relevance of commonalities
of perception or experience, but opens the research paradigm up to validate
the experiences of the individual as a contributor to knowledge creation
(Kvale, 1996). I have found that this concern with the experiences of
individuals has accorded with psychological approaches to interviewing and
led me to a number of key principles which have guided my interviewing.
4.6.2 Principles of interviewing
My five principles of interviewing evolved from applying participative
approaches to research and transferring selected techniques used in social
work practice and therapy to a research context. In brief these five principles
are:
165
• Participant involvement
• Recognising that explicit identities result in situated, partial data
• Responding to unique experiences in the context of texts
• Recognising power dynamics
• Recognising emotion
• Empathic interviewing
In undertaking interviews my aim was to maximise the involvement of
participants in the creation of knowledge. Although in practice my interviewing
did not enable genuine co-construction of knowledge, my interview design
enabled participants to provide a lead on some issues discussed. The
relevance of identities was central, both in relation to participants and myself.
As such my interviews represented partial and situated data, a feature which
is both recognised and utilised in my analysis. The acknowledgement of
difference in relation to identities enabled me also to consider the impact of
sameness and otherness on the interviewing relationship and the potential for
power imbalances created as a result. From the perspective of therapeutic
interviewing, I drew on the importance of recognising emotion as an important
factor guiding my questioning. This perspective also provided clear guiding
principles relating to empathic interviewing such as building trust and methods
of deepening understanding such as re-phrasing and offering insight.
166
4.7 Participant involvement in data production
through interviewing
4.7.1 Recognising that explicit identities result in situated,
partial data
The methodology of this thesis has been underpinned by the assumption that
I have attempted to involve participants in my exploration of their experiences.
This participative approach draws upon Kvale’s ‘traveller metaphor’ (Kvale,
1996), the researcher ‘wandering together with’ participants in search of
insight and understanding. This image illustrates the ‘inter-relational and
structural’ (Kvale 1996) nature of knowledge which this approach exploits. As
such my epistemological claims are based upon the belief that partial and
situated construction of knowledge is not only valid and relevant, but also
inevitable in the context of this thesis as elsewhere. Reinharz (1992) uses the
term ‘experiential analysis’ to refer to an approach which she identified as
common in feminist research, whereby the researcher embraces their own
subjectivity and draws upon personal experience throughout the research
process. The concept of co-construction of understanding derives from well
established feminist critiques of research methods and is illustrated by the
following quotation:
The use of semi-structured interviews has become the principal means by which feminists have sought to achieve involvement of their respondents in the construction of data about their lives. (Reinharz, 1992, p. 32)
167
4.7.2 Responding to unique experiences in the context of
texts
All of the interviews used the individual students’ texts, together with a
common knowledge of the course materials, as a reference point. The specific
experiences of each student in relation to these documents, however, are
unique and unpredictable as they draw upon the identities and lives of each
participant. Reinharz (1992) cites the approach of Harrington and Aisenberg
who in their research used semi-structured interviewee-led interviews, in
which:
Because we did not know at the outset what the particulars of each woman’s relevant experience would be, we did not conduct the interviews through preset questions. Rather, we identified general areas we wanted to cover, but let the interviewees responses determine the order of subjects, the time spent on each, and the introduction of additional issues. (Reinharz, 1992, p. 38)
Although my interviews were not interviewee-led to this extent, I attempted to
devise sufficiently general questions (particularly in the revised second
interview) to enable space for unpredictable issues to be raised which arose
from the students’ individual conscious and unconscious experiences. Some
of these issues, such as the use of the first person singular pronouns became
significant themes.
4.7.3 Recognising power dynamics
The involvement of participants in influencing the direction of questioning
enabled me to address in some part the inherent power differential between
the interviewees and myself as the researcher, by facilitating and valuing both
the introduction of topics and interpretation of the issues by the participant.
168
One significant example of this is the different usage of first person singular
pronouns on the foundation course and the practice learning course. Neither
the original interview questions used for interview one nor the revised second
interview questions specifically raised the issue of first person pronoun use.
Despite this, the issue was raised by all of the students presented here as
case studies. David, for example, alludes to the use of the first person as a
key difference between the foundation and practice learning course:
David: Well, in [the foundation course] you would be unlikely to use the first person. I think that is basically it. The requirement to put the ‘I’ centre stage in [the foundation course].
D1: David interview: 17th April 2001
Patricia raises the same issue, slightly less directly, in expressing concern
about the lack of preparation for writing on the practice learning course:
Patricia: What we should have had Lucy to start with was some sort of workshop giving us an idea of the style, it’s the style that is so different because [practice learning course tutor] wants ‘I want, I think, I feel I felt’ where as the [foundation course] is looking at writing in the third person.
P2: Patricia interview: 14th June 2001
These two examples illustrate the way in which an issue raised by
interviewees in response to very general questions about their experiences of
writing on the two courses led to a significant research theme relevant to the
research questions. This particular issue is explored in some detail in 5.3, 5.4
and 5.5, where I explore the explicit and implicit expectations of student
writing across the two courses.
Involving interviewees’ issues like this is also a way in which I can value the
participants’ expertise gained through experience in a particular discipline.
169
The participants not only contribute to the creation of understanding, but
through the process of interviewing may gain insight themselves:
A well carried out research interview can be a rare and enriching experience for the interviewee, who may obtain new insights into his or her life situation. (Kvale, 1996, p. 158)
Without follow up research it is not possible for me to fully understand the
degree to which the interviews resulted in greater insight for participants.
However, the process of being involved in the research and reflecting upon
their writing generally resulted in thoughtful and reflective interview data from
students. Some interviewees demonstrated more immediate insights during
the interviews, such as Pamela:
Pamela: I find if I don’t give myself too much time for my writing I’m OK Lucy: So you’d write straight onto the computer and then would you go
back and check it? Pamela: I’d print it off, read it and then if I found any I’d mark any mistakes I’ll
go through it on the computer and then print it off. Lucy: And what would happen if you did give yourself more time, because
you implied that that would make you more worried? Pamela: I think it would, I really think it would. If I’ve more chance to think
about it I’ve got more time to worry about it. With the first [the foundation course] I really, really mulled over it for about two weeks I thought I really can’t do this, they are wanting too much from me!
PM1: Pamela interview: 2nd July 2001
In this extract Pamela reflects on her own writing practice of not allowing
herself too much time to redraft her writing. She seems to realise that if she
did so it would focus her anxiety about her ability to write and that writing
quickly may in fact be one of her strategies for managing her own anxiety.
The interviews with both students and tutors provided a valuable opportunity
for deepening my own reflections on student writing. Having been a social
170
work student myself I was able to empathise with many of the experiences
shared with me, such as the frustration of trying to ‘second guess’ what an
individual tutor would value in a piece of assessed writing. The interviews also
made me more aware of my own identities and the emotions generated in me
as an educator and learner. I shared with many of the participants the
experience of being a mother responsible for a family whilst studying and also
the history of overcoming negative learning experiences at school which at
times influenced my experiences of current learning. Moments of resonance
such as these provided invaluable opportunities for reflection on my data and
also as a starting point for analysis.
4.7.4 Participant: Researcher Positioning
My identity as researcher is also significant in my positioning in relation to
participant interviewees. Both interviewer and interviewee take part in each
encounter through the foregrounding or backgrounding of particular aspects of
their identity. Finch (1984) talks of the researcher ‘placing’ themselves in
relation to their interviewees. In placing myself as an academic, researcher
and educator, I created difference and a potential power imbalance. The
research role creates an imbalance of power which is at risk of being
accentuated when the researcher is not a member of the oppressed groups to
whom she is reaching out.
Not only does the researcher set the agenda but she also decides whose voice can be heard. (Crozier, 2003, p. 82)
Crozier suggests that there is a need to counter the trap of researchers
reinforcing a ‘them and us’ dichotomy through acknowledging the
171
marginalisation of respondents from oppressed groups as ‘Other’ but then
speaking on their behalf. One response to the risk of such marginalization is
symmetrical matching of researcher and respondent identities. This approach,
critiqued by Mirza (2000), is problematic due to multiple identities and
experiences of both parties, although commonality of experiences or
understanding can provide a starting point for building trust (Crozier, 2003).
Such commonalities can be nurtured through openness on the part of the
researcher, enabling her to identify herself with experiences, which build
rather than inhibit connections. For example I shared with student participants
not only evident aspects of my identity such as my gender, but also my
background as a social worker (thereby sharing professional identity) and
family circumstances as a mother who was both working and studying
(sharing with several participants these three competing roles). Thus the
potential barrier of being a representative of the University or academic
community may be partially mitigated by identification based upon gender,
motherhood, and being a student or genuine expressions of empathy. The
very process of sharing personal experiences or aspects of identity signals
vulnerability in the researcher which can assist in breaking down the power
differential and assist in building a non-exploitative relationship.
4.8 The place of emotion
Sinding and Aronson (2003) in their research on death and palliative care
raise important considerations for researchers involved in interviewing
participants where questioning may exacerbate emotional vulnerability:
172
Particularly in later interviews, with greater rapport established, some participants expressed strong feelings about their situations: humiliation, fear, shame, depression and anger. While this was ‘good data’ I was sometimes troubled that I had elicited difficult and seldom acknowledged or shared feelings and stories and left just the rawness behind. (Sinding and Aronson, 2003, p. 101)
Discussion with some students in this study also touched upon areas which
were highly emotive such as their experiences of racism both as children and
adults. All students however exposed a degree of vulnerability through
engaging in talk about their writing, which required careful questioning in order
to elicit relevant data but avoid aggravating anxieties. This was particularly
important as students were in the process of studying. Where vulnerabilities
were discussed in interviews, therefore, it was important that I also focused on
the students’ strengths and strategies so that they did not leave feeling
disempowered in their writing. In my interview with Christine, who spoke of
her lack of confidence in her ability to write, it was important to remind
Christine of her strengths:
Christine: When I was in Jamaica I used to come first and second in everything
Lucy: Hmm Christine: You know – that- I did in school but when I came here I sort of -
back in the 6th and the 7th and the 8th and the 10th – you know that’s how I slipped!
Lucy: Hmm – It’s still quite good though. It is still in the top half of the class
Christine: Yeah but when you are a perfectionist you want to keep those firsts and seconds
Lucy: Yes Christine interview: 12th March 2001
Christine’s comparison of her successful educational performance in Jamaica
with that in England seemed to imply failure in her emphatic ‘you know that’s
173
how I slipped’. My response was intended to remind Christine that despite her
‘slipping’ in the class ranking, she was still a successful student, (‘It’s still quite
good though. It is still in the top half of the class ‘) and the comment resulted
in her acknowledging her own perfectionism.
Sinding and Aronson (2003) caution against the interviewer reinforcing
dominant discourses which can reaffirm the interviewee’s negative self-
perception. Such reinforcing can result unintentionally from unguarded lines of
questioning or responses. During interviews I was aware of a pull towards
reaffirming students’ (and tutors’) belief that writing is a straightforward skill
and consequently discussing it in terms of sentence-level grammar. For
example my interview with Pamela initially led me to join with her in focusing
on why she had problems with her writing, if she had always found writing
difficult and whether either of the courses were more or less difficult. It was
not until we talked together about the process of how she typed her essays
and her interpretation of the feedback, which remained a mystery to her, that
it became clear that the problem lay with the inconsistency of both the
conventions and the tutors’ application of conventions across the two courses.
The feedback from the tutor and my own initial responses indicate a focus
upon Pamela’s technical writing skills (her use of surface-level grammar and
punctuation) and how she has dealt with these. Stepping back however it was
clear that criticism of her writing, which confirmed her own lack of confidence
in her ability, derived from Pamela misunderstanding a technicality relating to
the use of the computer together with ineffective communication between the
student and tutor to resolve the problem.
174
There is a delicate balance, therefore to be struck here between challenging
the homeostasis of students’ conceptions of themselves and upturning their
world by introducing alternative explanations and discourses:
Insofar as research interviews can be understood to ‘expose failures’ an ‘unsettle accommodations’, they can be seen to threatened study participants’ identities. (Sinding and Aronson, 2003, p. 102)
As a researcher I have a responsibility for retaining an awareness of the
potential effects of such threatened identities, so I made efforts to avoid
offering to students my own initial or immediate responses to what I thought
lay behind their writing experiences, particularly where this might bolster
negative identity. Where possible I allowed the student to lead with their own
analysis or interpretations of their experiences, although I was also aware in
my analysis that this student-led approach did not necessarily offer a
transparent window onto their experiences.
4.9 Empathic intuitive interviewing
As indicated in the preceding discussion, my identity and relationship with the
participants is explicit and treated as contributory to both the process of data
collection and the analysis. My relevant experiences and skills also explicitly
influenced both the process of data collection (particularly the interviewing)
and also the analysis. Of particular significance, I believe, have been my
communication and interpersonal skills developed over my career as a
professional social worker. Throughout my interviews I aspired to follow
Anderson’s suggestion that::
175
Compassionate listening allows our research participants to speak to us freely and honestly about the depth and value of their human experiences…compassion allows us to see the values and significance of the data as they shape themselves before us. (Anderson, 1998, p. 4)
Kvale (1996) recognises the relevance of interpersonal skills, amongst others,
of the research interviewer;
The outcome of an interview depends on the knowledge, sensitivity, and empathy of the interviewer. (Kvale, 1996, p. 105)
I was aware, however, that caution was needed in the use of my insider
disciplinary perspective as it had the potential to inhibit me in retaining a
critical distance.
Rogers suggests in his theory of ‘client-centred interviewing’ (Rogers, 1962)
that empathy can be created through interviewer responses which offer
accurate interpretations with ‘warmth’, ‘positive regard’ and mirroring.
Psychoanalytic traditions, as represented by the work of Rogers, provide a
framework for research interviewing which recognises and values the
interpersonal, emotive and intuitive nature of the process. As stated by Kvale
(1996);
It is difficult to draw any strong line of demarcation between a therapeutic and a research interview. Both may lead to increased understanding and change, but with the emphasis on personal change in a therapeutic interview and on intellectual understanding in a research interview. (Kvale, 1996, p. 155).
The interviews in this thesis have drawn upon Rogerian techniques, including
empathy and reframing both to facilitate a positive experience for the
participants and also to deepen understanding. Participants’ reticence in
disclosing personal information could arise from a need for greater trust. My
176
attempts to use intuitive reframing and empathy opened up the possibility for
me to deepen my understanding of participants’ experiences. The following
extract is one example of such deepening of understanding from the first
interview with Bernie. In the following extract, you can see how I take the
opportunity to value her achievements and skills and focus on her feeling that
they were undervalued by others:
Bernie: I thought other people talked and treated others the same way, which was not so, it’s not so at all. I was a unique person out there. And because people keep pointing that out to me, the more I realise that I need to do something about it, ‘cos there’s nothing else for me
Lucy: So people pointing out that you had particular skills in communicating?
Bernie: Yeah Lucy: So you felt that you wanted to do more? Bernie: Yeah, it was right that I felt like somebody needed to know that this
was not fair, the fact that I didn’t have a piece of paper wasn’t fair, so I wanted to…
Lucy: So you felt that people were not valuing you and your skills? Bernie: Because I didn’t have the paper behind me Lucy: Didn’t have the respect because you didn’t have the qualification? Bernie: Yeah or I had a lot of people referring, even the schools saying,
she’s very good…when I left people were still ringing me up and saying ‘please please’ …
Lucy: So thinking about some of that journey that you went through from being at school when you were really quite ambitious for yourself and you knew that you had ability and then through college through that stage after you had had the children and were getting back into work and knowing that you really had this potential but you don’t feel that you are getting the recognition, do you think that that was just to do with kind of getting distracted by having a more liberal life or do you think that it was anything to do with your school experiences?
Bernie: It was a lot to do with my school experiences and thinking that I’m not that capable.
Lucy: Hmmm Bernie: Or, ‘cos you take on board what you see at school and you … and
think I can’t do it, I’m not capable. Lucy: And was that, was that the same story at college that you felt that
177
there weren’t any tutors who could help you? Bernie: No Lucy: Because you were obviously very motivated to learn, but something
just got in the way.
Bernie: Yeah – it was just that idea. B1: Bernie interview: 20th March 2001
In this example I am using positive reframing, focusing on aspects of Bernie’s
abilities in order to communicate my positive regard, thereby attempting to
develop trust, shared understanding and empathy. In my first response to
Bernie here I am confirming that I have understood her (‘So people pointing
out that you had particular skills in communicating?’). In doing this I am both
using my skills in empathy and knowledge of the discriminatory social and
educational context that she is describing. In my subsequent comments I
focus on affirming my understanding of Bernie’s perceptions and feelings (‘So
you felt that you wanted to do more?’ and ‘So you felt that people were not
valuing you and your skills?’). In response to each, Bernie either confirms my
reframing (‘Yeah’) or clarifies her meaning further (‘Because I didn’t have the
paper behind me’). My final comment in this extract summarises my reframing
of Bernie’s experiences based not only on empathy and careful listening, but
also on my knowledge drawn from discourses within social work and
education relating to discrimination (‘Because you were obviously very
motivated to learn, but something just got in the way’) to which she affirms
‘Yeah – it was just that idea’.
Beyond these verbal illustrations, much of the empathy and sensitivity that I
expressed is not visible in text as it was communicated through body
language and tone of voice. For example we sat without a table between us at
approximately 45 degrees so that eye contact could be relaxed and not
178
confrontational. As I was using an audio recorder I did not need to take notes
(another barrier to open communication) and was able to lean slightly towards
Bernie with a relaxed and open posture. As suggested by Wengraf:
Non verbal communication is of great importance… Even if your paralinguistics are congruent with your words, your body language may be sending a different message. Consequently, very necessary to good interviewing is a high level of sophistication about listening to the paralinguistics of yourself and your informant, as well as staying aware of the non-verbal communication coming through body posture and body movement. (Wengraf, 2001, p. 4)
This combination of subject-specific knowledge and empathy can assist the
researcher in responding flexibly to unexpected turns taken by participants
and to respond with insights which provoke thoughtful exploration of the
themes.
One of the benefits of taking time to allow trust to develop through the
techniques discussed is that participants can offer additional insights to their
experiences, which they may initially have withheld. In the interview with
Bernie discussed here, she had originally positioned herself as having
dropped out of college as she was distracted by an ‘exciting life’:
Lucy: Oh, right so you went straight from school into college, Bernie: Yeah I didn’t want to … I went straight from school into college
because, I mean jobs out there is easy to find factory work and stuff, but I, why don’t you give that a try? I thought ‘no’ [with emphasis], so I wouldn’t do that, and I went to college where I …
Lucy: What do you think went wrong at college, why was that not good for you?
Bernie: Cos I, um I had lived such a restrictive life at home I think and when I went to college I think I found a different life out there. Exciting life. So, I went to college and I missed out a lot, didn’t study enough, didn’t take it serious enough. I was just not ready. I didn’t realise how much input I needed to put in so I ended up not doing work there and after that went into care work, but that was on a YTS and
179
then I went into an adult programme working with children,
Lucy: Right B2: Bernie interview: 20th March 2001
In this first discussion of the topic, Bernie’s suggestion that she left college as
she ‘didn’t study enough’ and was tempted by a more ‘exciting life’, illustrates
her taking the full responsibility for her difficulties at college on herself. As the
interview progressed, however, I am then able to return to the question of
leaving college. She begins to express a more reflective account of her
experience. Bernie acknowledges that her negative experiences of education
in school had knocked her belief in herself as a child. In doing so she shares
significant and painful personal experiences and lays some responsibility for
her failure at college on her treatment in school, as illustrated in extract B2
above. This point of the interview brings Bernie back to memories which could
have been painful for her:
Bernie: Or, cos you take on board what you see at school and you … and think I can’t do it I’m not capable.
B3: Bernie interview: 20th March 2001
Thus building up a degree of trust and empathy was important to help her to
talk about her memories a little. This exchange took place in the final stage of
the interview (page 11 of a 12-page interview). My verbal communication was
supported by non-verbal cues, such as leaning towards Bernie, eye contact
and an encouraging tone of voice. I also used what could be perceived as a
‘leading question’ to re-open this discussion (‘do you think that that was just to
do with kind of getting distracted by having a more liberal life or do you think
that it was anything to do with your school experiences?’) which, it could be
suggested ‘led’ the participant resulting in an invalid response. Kvale
180
suggests, however that in qualitative research interviews the use of repeated
leading questions can in fact enhance the reliability of interviews in that they
test out the consistency of answers and also the accuracy of the interviewers
‘interpretations’.
Kvale (1996) identifies eight different forms of interview questions, one of
which is the ‘interpretative question’ which he describes as follows:
The degree of interpretation may merely involve rephrasing an answer, for instance: ‘You mean that…?’ Or attempts at clarification. ‘Is it correct that you feel that…?’, ‘Does the expression… cover what you have just expressed?’. There may also be more direct interpretations of what a pupil has said: ‘Is it correct that your main anxiety about the grades concerns the reactions from your parents?’ More speculative questions can take the form of: ‘Do you see any connections between the two situations of competing with other pupils for grades and the relation to you siblings at home? (Kvale, 1996, p. 135)
Interpretation is also a concept used in psychoanalysis, whereby the analyst
offers an insight to the analysand of possible underlying motivations or
meanings. Such interpretations may be based upon psychoanalytic theory or
more simply rephrasing of the interviewee’s words in order to clarify that both
parties share the same understanding. In the example cited above, the
interpretation could be seen as a leading question and is open to the criticism
that the comment could distort the validity of the interview. The assumption
that participants are unable to challenge interpretations which are incorrect, or
resist leading questions has been challenged (Kvale, 1996) and demonstrated
in this thesis, where participants challenged, qualified and corrected
interpretations. In the following section I suggested that Bernie felt
unsupported by tutors, again a ‘leading interpretation’. This time Bernie
challenges, and then offers an alternative reason for her ill-ease at college:
181
Lucy: And was that, was that the same story at college that you felt that there weren’t any tutors who could help you?
Bernie: No Lucy: Because you were obviously very motivated to learn, but something
just got in the way. Bernie: Yeah – it was just that idea. I mean even now when I’m writing I
have to keep re checking and checking it whether I’ve put it the right English and I’m writing it the right way.
B4: Bernie interview: 20th March 2001
Here Bernie rejects the idea that her belief was that none of the tutors at
college could help her, and instead suggests that it was the idea in her head
that she had a problem with her written English, an inner anxiety which
resulted in her needing to check and recheck her writing.
Knight (2002) suggests that the use of open-ended questions in interviews
can be unhelpful in generating data for analysis as they result in incomplete
responses, which are influenced by participants’ current preoccupations or
concerns. It is also likely that if the flow of interviews is entirely led by
participants, there will be insufficient common ground to allow analysis across
interviews.
The approach used in my interviews has allowed space for participants to
draw the interview into areas of particular concern or interest to them, but has
retained a sufficiently firm structure (around the guiding questions as well as
through the use of leading questions) to allow analysis across interviews to be
of use. In preference to interpretation, I have used the term ‘reframing’ as this
suggests that I am only working with the information that the participant offers
and re-presenting it, rather than making any psychoanalytically informed
182
interpretation of unspoken thoughts or feelings. Lacan (1964) supports the
avoidance of interpretation of meaning, and instead suggests that in analysis
the role of the analyst is to reflect back to the analysand what has
(unconsciously) been verbalised. In analysis therefore, this process can
enable the analyst and analysand can together explore unconscious thoughts
and feelings which have inadvertently been verbalised.
4.10 Applying the principles of interviewing to
telephone discussion interviewing
In approaching the telephone discussion with tutors, I intended to adopt the
same principles as those outlined in 4.6.2 relating to face-to-face interviews:
• Participant involvement
• Recognising explicit identities resulting in situated, partial data
• Responding to unique experiences in the context of texts
• Recognising power dynamics
• Recognising emotion
• Empathic interviewing
There were clear differences between the student and tutor interviews,
however, in that the tutors were not interviewed one-to-one or face-to-face but
in a group using the medium of a telephone discussion. Despite these
apparently key differences, the aims and principles were broadly the same. A
focus on texts with the core aim of developing a participant involvement to
reach a shared understanding remained central. As a small number of
183
individuals contributed based on their own personal experiences, data
collected was necessarily partial and I was aware that individual contributions
risked being influenced by the group context. This was eased by the relative
parity of our roles as educators, although I retained a relatively powerful
position as the designer of the research. I was particularly aware of this as I
designed the feedback and grading of the assignments in such a way as to
ensure that I was in possession of all the marked texts before the tutors
shared these with each other. This was in order to reduce the potential for
tutors to align their feedback with the majority under the influence of the group
dynamics.
Identity remained a significant factor despite the relative anonymity provided
by the telephone and the tutors were professionally and emotionally exposed
by this exercise. Not only were private assessments made public, but
contrasting professional judgements and beliefs were shared which required
the creation of an accepting, non-judgemental and empathic context for
discussion just as much as the student interviews. One particular example
arose in the disclosing of grades, which had been sent to me in advance. The
first two tutors to speak awarded a fail for the assignment which was the focus
of discussion, but I was aware that not only had the third tutor given it a good
pass mark, but that this matched the grade given by the original marker. I was
concerned that the third tutor to speak in the discussion might feel reluctant to
participate openly and that he might feel his professional judgement was
challenged by the views of his colleagues. In response to this concern, I
chose to disclose more information about the anonymous text than I might
otherwise have chosen to:
184
Tutor 1: There is a lot, like [Tutor 3], I felt that to be honest all these specific areas asked of the student and the questions were not answered appropriately. I felt values were not really tackled at all and that we would like the assessment analysis of personal professional experience was very limited to their self-awareness. All sorts of assumptions in the essay and not been backed up by use of course material to support the thinking.
Lucy: Yes that’s fine. Do you want to say roughly how you graded it Tutor 3 and Tutor 2?
Tutor 3 :I am always nervous about this because it turned out to be hard the last time we met as a group.
Lucy: If it makes you feel any better the grading ended up two of you grading (out of the four people, the original marker and you two) you in pairs, two identical grades. If that makes sense.
Tutor 3: Okay. I’d actually fail this one but very marginal and I would give him lots of positive feedback as well.
Lucy: Yep. [Tutor 1]?
Tutor 1: I failed it too. I gave 45%. I nudged it up a wee bit more.
Lucy: Hmm and just to make [Tutor 2] feel better before he comes in. The original marker gave it 70%. So [tutor 2] would you like to give your feedback?
Tutor 2: I found there are a lot of positives in this essay. I thought it was quite interesting and well thought out really and included a lot of reflection but I felt the reflection and I agree with my two colleagues that it was rather general and kind of academic style rather than a personal style…So I thought it was quite a lot in it actually. And I thought there was quite a lot of reference to the person’s background and personal values particularly in the first section. Although obviously I think it could have been better and I probably marked it too high in the light of those comments really.
Lucy: Uhu, although your mark was almost identical to what it was finally marked as. So I think kind of these essays illustrate exactly the point we wanted to get at which is what do we value in essays. But anyway I don’t want to talk too much so Tutor 3 would you like to talk through Text B?
185
Tutor discussion: September 3rd 2002
This extract illustrates that Tutors 2 and 3 both demonstrated some anxiety
about revealing scores, based on previous experience of marking exercises9.
Tutor 2, who on this occasion was more generous than his peers, was able to
provide his assessment and justify it to his peers, which I was concerned he
may not have done if I had not revealed the grading of the original tutor to
encourage him. It was important that as an interviewer I was able to be
empathic and supportive to the tutors as individuals whilst also demonstrating
an ability to join with their critical analysis of the texts and wider issues,
without disclosing my own views about individual texts or their authors.
4.11 Data analysis
Analysis in this thesis has involved consideration of all the main sources of
data (course materials, student interviews and texts and the tutor discussion)
and mapping themes based in the research questions both within and across
these main data sources. My starting point was two sets of student texts
together with teaching materials and accompanying guidance from the two
courses studied. An initial reading of these texts together with the course
documentation in the context of my initial research questions enabled me to
9 The convention at the university studied was for groups of tutors marking assignments on
the same course to undertake a marking exercise in which the same student text would be
graded against the guidance and any discrepancies discussed. The purpose is to fine tune
the guidance and achieve the greatest level of consistency possible in grading.
186
confirm particular areas of investigation. These included differences in writing
and guidance between the courses studied and the experiences of students
creating the texts. I was able to begin to explore the nature of expectations
and guidance given to students through comparing documentation on each
course for the clarity and consistency of advice. The ways in which this was
interpreted by students and tutors together with their respective experiences
of engaging in creating and commenting on these texts could only be gained
through in-depth interviews.
It has been my intention to hold up for scrutiny and analysis those issues
foregrounded by participants themselves, within the parameters of my
questioning based upon the research questions. I have drawn together
common themes through the use of summaries and tables used with the
interview data (see Appendices 5 and 6) and texts comments (see Appendix
7). I listed key themes (as discussed in 4.4.3) in order to organise and
compare the issues raised across interviews. Beyond my initial analysis of the
full set of student texts, at the level of case study I have primarily used them
as a focus and reference point for the interviews. I did, however, focus in on
the use of first person singular pronouns in a broader analysis of texts. This
analysis is discussed further in s 4.11.4 and 6.5. The use of case studies and
also the textual analysis of first person singular pronouns are both examples
of my use of progressive focusing.
4.11.1 Progressive focusing
The collection and analysis of data was an organic process, beginning with
my own prior experiences and familiarity with the courses studied. I collected
187
a sample of 35 student texts and 15 hours of interview data. Analysis
continued throughout the collection of data and the transcriptions of
interviews, for example, were used as ongoing tools for analysis as I added
more observations as my analysis developed (see Appendix 10). As my data
collection and analysis progressed, however, I found it necessary to focus in
more closely on particular aspects of the data in order to gain sufficient depth
or breadth.
This process has been referred to as progressive focusing, a method which
enables the qualitative researcher to analyse data during collection and
thereby focus in (in or out) on specific themes or areas of interest:
Qualitative data analysis is an iterative and reflexive process that begins as the data are being collected rather than after data collection has ceased (Stake, 1995). Next to the field notes or transcripts, the qualitative analyst jots down ideas about the meaning of the text and how it might relate to other issues. The process of reading through the data and interpreting it continue throughout the project and the analyst adjusts the data collection process itself when it begins to appear that additional concepts need to be investigated or new relationships explored. Engel and Scutt 2005, p. 381)
There are four specific examples in my study of progressive focusing, the
selection of case studies, my use of case studies, the tutor telephone
discussion and my analysis of texts for the use of first person singular
pronouns. The student interviews provided 15 hours of rich data, and for the
purpose of detailed analysis and the presentation of findings in this thesis I
worked in greater depth with the texts and transcribed interviews of 4 students
developed as case studies. This process of ‘progressive focusing’ has
enabled me to move from an extensive set of data from which broad themes
were arising, towards case studies providing experientially rich detail.
188
My decision to recruit a small number of tutors, as described in 4.4.7, to
participate in an anonymous marking exercise and telephone discussion
arose from my initial analysis of written tutor comments on student texts. I was
aware that tutors’ experience was missing from my data and that this
perspective was important in relation to a number of issues such as the
differences in writing expectations between the practice learning course and
the foundation course and students’ interpretation of tutors’ comments on their
texts. This example of progressive focusing resulted in me seeking new data,
therefore, which my initial analysis had highlighted as a significant gap.
Another example of progressive focusing involved a specific deeper
investigation into the whole sample of student texts which had otherwise
primarily only been used in conjunction with interviews. My initial analysis of
the full set of texts, together with my interviews with students highlighted the
significance of the way in which writers in each of the courses used first
person singular pronouns. I considered that this warranted further text-level
investigation and so undertook an analysis of the frequency and context of
usage of first person singular pronouns on each course discussed below in
6.5. Finally the importance of students’ individual experiences encouraged me
to take a case study approach to analysing the student interviews and text
data. This involved focusing down from the 8 students interviewed to
concentrate on 4 detailed case studies.
4.11.2 Case study as method
I have used the concept of ‘case study’ as a framework for the design and
analysis of this study. Riessman (2003) argues convincingly for the legitimacy
of a place for case study as a research method, particularly in the field of
189
health, which is closely related to social work. Health shares with the
discipline of social work the use of case study as a key teaching tool. Its
usefulness as a research paradigm has been uncertain, however, in part due
to criticisms from positivist evidence based perspectives which have portrayed
case studies as being no more than anecdotal. Riessman argues, however,
that case studies can go further than merely illustrating phenomena (for the
purposes of teaching) and can provide insight into expressive lived
experiences which cannot be derived from other methods Yin (2003) also
challenges the stereotype of the case study method as being insufficient in
the areas of precision, objectivity and rigour and suggests that:
In brief, the case study method allows investigators to retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real life events… (Yin, 2003, p. 2)
The benefit of using case studies therefore is that they provide insights into
contemporary human experiences in a real-life social context (Yin. 2003). In
the context of academic writing, Lea and Street (1998) draw upon the
ethnographic tradition represented by Mitchell (1984) in the following
quotation:
What the anthropologist using a case study to support an argument does is to show how general principles deriving from some theoretical orientation manifest themselves in some given set of particular circumstances. A good case study, therefore, enables the analyst to establish theoretically valid connections between events and phenomena which previously were ineluctable. (Mitchell, 1984 quoted in Lea and Street, 1998, p. 4)
In contrast to essentialist research designs which rely upon the use of
comparative control samples, Yin (2003) suggests that case studies would be
invalidated by controls and they pertain to a specific context and time which is
190
not replicable. Although findings from case study based research cannot lead
to universal generalisable truths, they can be generalised for the purpose of
developing theoretical propositions (Yin, 2003). The design of case study
research, therefore, should be closely aligned with the theoretical frame within
which the research questions are derived. Consequently there must be a
close relationship between the research questions, the theoretical frame and
the design of the case study. Yin suggests, for example, that the research
questions should give a clear indication of the unit of analysis and therefore
the focus of the case study.
In this thesis the unit of study could have been the individual student, the tutor
group, the programme or even the year 2001 cohort of social workers in
training nationally. Alternatively I could have focused on multiple units (more
than one individual member of a specific group or several groups or
programmes of study). Referring back to the research questions, however
clarified the most effective unit of analysis. The questions were as follows:
In the context of a distance learning social work education programme:
• What are the requirements and expectations of different kinds of
student writing?
• How do prior experiences (personal and educational) impact on the
experience and practice of student writing?
• How do student and tutor identities influence different kinds of student
writing?
191
Although the first question required analysis at the level of each whole course
and a large group of students’ responses to guidance, the second two focus
specifically on individual student experiences. As Riessman (2003) suggests,
they required a focus on expressive experiences and recognition of the
identity and social positioning of both researcher and subjects. This approach
led me to focus on the experience of individual students engaged in writing on
social work programmes. As such, the units of analysis remained the
individual students and I chose to select 4 individuals from the 8 who were
interviewed on whom to base my case studies. These 4 students were
selected because they enabled me most effectively to present the recurring
issues which arose across the group whilst providing greater depth and
richness of data. The scale of analysis required together with the importance
of conveying the individual experiences of these students to the reader
persuaded me to limit my case studies to 4 students, Bernie, David, Patricia
and Pamela.
Analysis of the case studies came to the fore after the main themes or issues
arising from the data set as a whole had been identified. In this way one of the
functions of case studies could be argued to be theory building. The case
studies enabled me to focus on the interviews and their associated texts in
more detail in order to draw out examples to illustrate my arguments. For
example, my second hypothesis was that the specific nature of the writing
task influences both the way in which students engage with academic writing
and also the feedback dialogue between tutor and student. My initial analysis
of the full set of student texts and course materials led me to conclude that the
greater importance of writing about personal experience on the practice
192
learning course significantly influenced the ways in which individual students
approached their writing and also responded to the grading and feedback
from tutors. My exploration of the four case studies supported this conclusion,
and provided detailed evidence to support the argument that, whilst student
writing was influenced by this requirement, the ways in which they were
affected were very individual (as discussed further in 7.2, 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5).
The nature of findings from case study data are therefore very individual
whilst also illuminating broader experiences and issues which are of
importance to our understanding and theorisation of student writing and
educational practices. The findings are intended to contribute to our
understanding and theorisation of the experiences of students engaging in
social work writing. Despite this study being small scale, I anticipate that the
findings can be developed and build upon the theorisation of student writing
generally and on social work programmes in particular. Parallels and
conclusions that may be drawn from other programmes of study must
therefore derive from this theorisation rather than from making generalisations
from the experiences of these particular students.
4.11.3 Psychological influences on the analysis
In my interpretations of data I drew on the concept of the ‘defended subject’
(Hollway and Jefferson, 2000, p. 19-21), who take a more clearly
psychoanalytic perspective on research interviewing. This approach draws
upon the psychoanalytic concept of ‘defence mechanisms’ discussed in 3.8.4.
In common with Hall’s discussion of translations (Hall and Maharaj, 2001),
Holway and Jefferson (2004) challenge the transparency of communication,
193
suggesting that it is important to be aware of what is left unsaid, or disguised,
because it is not understood by the subject themselves, is emotionally painful
or involves revealing positions which for some reason are veiled. Hollway and
Jefferson offer the concept of the defended subject from within a post-
structuralist frame, fully aware of the implications of power imbalances and
the consequent potential for distortion (Hollway and Jefferson, 2004, p. 19-
21).
I found their perspective compelling as it provided a critical approach to
drawing on the inner worlds of interviewer and interviewee in an analysis of
the research interview. This brings the issue of identity to the fore in the
context of the research interview. It also opens up the possibility of thinking
about the potential significance of identities both foregrounded and veiled
through the adoption of particular discourses which enables subjects to avoid
more personally painful or otherwise undesirable identities. I have found this
approach a useful and fascinating tool for reviewing my interviews and it has
been influential in my analysis. One example has been in my analysis of the
interviews with David, who drew upon a clear and credible academic
discourse in his challenge to the validity of reflective writing as an assessment
tool. His view that reflective writing is inherently incompatible with assessed
writing would be supported by the work of Boud (1999) and is also consistent
with social science discourse on the essay (Bazerman, 1981; Northedge,
2004) within which David studied his first degree.
194
4.11.4 First person singular pronoun use (I, me, my)
My interest in the way in which students were using first person pronouns
arose from my initial analysis of the full set of student texts collected. I
became aware of a difference in use not only in where first person pronouns
most commonly appeared but also in the expectations conveyed to students.
For example, it was evident on a first reading of the student texts that
students wrote in the first person considerably more frequently in practice
learning course texts than in foundation course texts. Advice in the written
course guidance documentation did not provide explicit guidance on the
subject, but comments from tutors through the telephone discussion
suggested that students were expected to write in the first person on the
practice learning course in particular:
Tutor 2: I have students in workshops and in (student texts), so they find it very difficult indeed to write essays from the first person perspective, some of them having gone through academic courses, although a lot of them haven’t, where they have been asked to write typical undergraduate essays which is about other people’s work and not their own.
Tutor 2: Tutor discussion: September 3rd 2002
Here Tutor 2 not only identifies that writing in the first person in an academic
context is unusual for many students, but that in his experience students often
find writing in this way a challenge. This led me to consider whether the
relative incidence of first person pronouns across the two courses could be
used as an indicator of the centrality of the self in each course text. I chose to
focus specifically on the use of the first person singular pronouns I, me and
my only. This was for two main reasons. Firstly I, me and my were the most
common pronouns in my sample of texts and secondly I was particularly
195
interested in exploring first person pronouns as an indicator of the author
writing about themselves in the context of their reflections on personal
experiences.
Analysis of first person pronoun use can provide a valuable linguistic
perspective through which to view self-representation in texts (Ivanič, 1996;
Tang and John, 1999; Hyland, 2001; 2002,). Ivanič (1996) suggested that in
general analysis of texts could provide an insight into the ways in which
writers present themselves through their writing. Ivanič (1996) focuses on
features such as pronoun use to explore the ways in which students position
themselves in relation to academic discourses and their own identities, values
and beliefs. Tang and John (1999), working in the context of Hong Kong drew
upon Ivanič’s work on pronoun use as an indicator of identity in texts and
suggest that the writer’s identity interacts in texts through three potential roles:
societal roles, discoursal roles and finally genre roles. Tang and John focus
on genre roles, that is, the ways in which the writer appears in the text are
dependant upon the specific text types. They propose six ways in which the
writer may appear in the text and order them along a continuum according to
the relative authorial power, ‘I’ as the originator being the most powerful and ‘I’
as the representative being the least powerful. These six categories are:
‘I’ as the representative (usually in the plural and speaking on behalf of an
established position of discourse community)
‘I’ as the guide through the essay (the author guiding the reader through
the essay)
196
‘I as the architect of the essay (the author indicating the structure of the
essay)
‘I’ as the recounter of the research process (the author describing
preparatory activities in creating the text such as primary research, often in
the plural, or reading source texts)
‘I’ as the opinion holder (the author expressing a view on the subject within
the text)
‘I’ as the originator (the author taking on an authoritative, authorial voice in
the text)
Adapted from Tang and John (1999, p. 39)
I drew directly upon Tang and John’s taxonomy in analysing my own data, as
I will explain below in this section. Tang and John’s study focused on
academic writing based on a corpus of first year undergraduate English
Language essays, and as such was concerned with students’ ability to martial
authoritative sources and develop an argument, as well as the degree to
which students could achieve an authorial presence in the text.
Hyland’s research (2001; 2002), published during the course of my own study,
adds a further interesting dimension to exploring pronoun use in academic
writing. Hyland, who like Tang and John, worked in Hong Kong with speakers
of English as a second language, undertook corpus research investigating the
use of first person pronouns both in academic student essays and in
published academic writing. Focusing on differences in pronoun use across
disciplinary text types, Hyland explored methods of supporting students in
197
making informed decisions about their own pronoun use in academic writing
(Hyland, 2001; Hyland, 2002). Hyland’s work offers four distinct uses of first
person pronouns, each associated with different verb choices, which he
orders according to the level of authority implied. Here I present them in order
from the least to the greatest level of implied authority:
• Explaining what was done (I have interviewed ten teachers from six schools)
• Structuring the discourse (First, I will discuss the method, then present my results)
• Showing a result (My findings show that the animation distracted the pupils from the test)
• Making a claim (I think two factors are particularly significant in destroying the councils)
(Hyland, 2002, p. 355)
Hyland challenges the traditional view, as expressed in extensive published
guidance to students (Hyland, 2002, p. 351-2), that the use of first person is
inappropriate in academic writing. He finds that this advice is not borne out in
academic publications and also that there is considerable disciplinary
variation in the frequency and context in which first person pronouns are
used. Hyland did not include any disciplines closely related to social work in
his corpus, but it is interesting to note that the one vocational / professional
higher education discipline included (marketing) showed the most frequent
incidence of first person pronoun use. Sociology, the only social science
included, was mid-way through the ranking.
Although I did not encounter Hyland’s work until I had completed my data
analysis, his findings are of interest in the context of my thesis, as he
198
identifies a significant difference between pronoun use in social sciences and
the loosely related professional or practice-based discipline of marketing.
These disciplines could be compared with the foundation course (as a social
science subject) and the practice learning course. From my own experience of
studying and teaching in the discipline of social work, I would anticipate that
the practice learning course, in common with marketing, would have come
towards the top of Hyland’s list of disciplines in terms of first person use. This
is because social work has a requirement that students include examples of
personal or practice experience and also self-reflection in their academic
writing, which necessitate the use of first person pronouns.
The research undertaken by Hyland and Tang and John provides a useful
starting point to exploring the first person pronoun use in the social work
student texts in my study. There are limitations in their taxonomies, however,
due to the absence from both studies of disciplines which included reflective,
expressive or narrative writing, such as the practice learning course.
In this thesis I have not taken a linguistic approach to the study of student
writing. However, the use of first person singular pronouns has been of
particular interest as it is so closely associated with the representation of the
self in writing and as a tool used by students when writing reflectively about
their personal experience. For the purposes of this study, as discussed further
in chapter 6, I initially identified and counted each individual use of I, me and
my for all of the foundation and practice learning course student texts (where
a full set was available). Based on this initial analysis, I was interested in
exploring how students were using first person singular pronouns.
199
I attempted to apply the taxonomy offered by Tang and John (1999) using
their six categories. Such an analysis proved problematic as I was only able to
identify three of Tang and John’s categories (‘I as guide through the essay’, I
as architect of the essay’ and I as the opinion holder’). Moreover, the vast
majority of uses of first person singular pronouns did not fit into any of the six
categories identified by Tang and John. Due to this difficulty in applying Tang
and John’s taxonomy, I repeated my count of uses of the first person singular
pronouns on the practice learning course and foundation course for all
students who had contributed both texts. On repeating this count, I included
two additional categories of ‘I as narrator’ and ‘I as reflector’. I provide a fuller
explanation of the definition of these categories and how I used them in 6.5.
4.12 Conclusion
In this chapter I have outlined the types of data collected and where they have
been used in this thesis. I have discussed the methods of data collection and
rationale behind their use, focusing in particular on the interviews with
students. My epistemological perspective strongly influenced the design of the
research and also the selected methods of analysis. For example, my wish to
facilitate student participation and acknowledge the influence of identity and
role in the creation of data from the interviews influenced both the method of
interviewing used. My analysis and data collection have progressed alongside
each other through progressive focusing on the research questions. This
technique resulted in a deepening of my investigation through the use of a
case study methodology, working with the full set of student texts in relation to
200
a very specific question relating to the use of the first person pronouns and
the collection of additional data from tutors to fill an important gap.
201
5. Chapter five: Student writing on the
Diploma in Social Work: expectations of
writing
5.1 Introduction
This chapter aims to expose the expectations that surround writing on the
practice learning and foundation courses from three perspectives:
1. The course materials and associated written guidance (5.2-5.4)
2. The tutors (5.5)
3. The students (5.6)
In the first part of this chapter I will outline the expectations of students’ writing
on each course based upon analysis of the written guidance available to
students, illustrating some ways in which this guidance could be potentially
confusing or inconsistent. I then move on to compare the tutors’ implicit
understanding of the writing required and the student’s experience of
interpreting the guidance and engaging with writing on the two courses. This
comparison suggests that there are very different writing conventions on the
foundation and practice learning course which are not always transparent for
students, but are implicitly understood by tutors. I will explore the students’
experiences through the case studies of Patricia, Bernie, Pamela and David to
illustrate the ways in which they individually responded to the common
202
experience of negotiating the implicit writing conventions identified on the
practice learning course as compared to the more explicit guidance on the
foundation course.
5.2 Exploring the written guidance
At level one (or the first year) of the Diploma in Social Work (DipSW) students
were required to undertake two courses, the practice learning course and the
foundation course, as outlined in 1.8. The practice learning course (available
only to social work students) was the first of two compulsory practice courses
studied by DipSW students, the second being undertaken at level two. These
courses involved the completion of assessed practice learning as well as
written academic assessment. The foundation course is ‘open’ and as such
had no entry requirements and could be studied by anyone with an interest in
care. It is an academic foundation course which, although based on the
applied social sciences, does not assess practice, and focuses on teaching
study skills in preparation for further study at higher education level.
Students studying the Diploma in Social Work (DipSW) are provided with
written documentation to guide them through each course, and inform them of
the assessment requirements. These documents are as follows:
Figure 22: Summary of guidance documents
Practice learning course
Purpose Written for
Programme Guide Provides an overview of the whole social work programme, including the way in which each of the courses contributes. Introduces the practice learning courses in more detail and explains the
Tutor and student
203
role of assessment, including practice assessment
Assignment Book Outlines the assessment strategy, provides the assignment tasks and the marking criteria.
Tutor and student
Tutor Guide Provides detailed advice on teaching, assessment and preparation for the face-to-face workshops
Tutor
Foundation course
Introduction and study guide
Provides an overview of the course including the aims and learning outcomes. Introduces study skills, including the set study guide book and explains the role of assessment.
Tutor and student
Assignment Book Outlines the assessment strategy, provides the assignment tasks and the marking criteria.
Tutor and student
Tutor Guide Provides detailed advice on teaching, assessment and preparation for the tutorials.
Tutor
The differences in expectations of students’ writing between the courses will
be considered firstly in terms of their stated aims, secondly the ways in which
each course provides guidance on study skills, particularly writing and thirdly
the assessment expectations of each course. A particular focus arising from a
comparison of the assessment expectations is the relationship that each
course has to practice and the related requirement to write about experience.
5.2.1 The aims of the practice learning and foundation
courses
The stated aims of the practice learning and foundation courses provide an
indication of not only the course content but also the purpose and demands of
assessed writing required of students on the social work programme. The
programme guide describes the practice learning course as being:
204
…very much about ‘doing and reflecting’; it is based on your past and present
practice as a social worker.
(Practice learning course, 2001)
and that compared with the foundation course, the practice learning course;
…concentrates more on writing about practice and learning how to generate
evidence of competence...
(Practice learning course, 2001)
The practice learning course, therefore had practice at its core; 50% of the
assessment relies on assessed practice and the written academic
assessment is intended to enable students to demonstrate their ability to
apply learning to practice through analysis and reflection. The academic
knowledge acquired on this course is intended to underpin and inform the
students’ practice learning.
The foundation course is described within the University’s publicity
documentation as a:
…broad practical introduction to health and social care …gives a grounding in the
knowledge, skills and understanding required in caring work of all kinds…it
prepares you for further study towards a diploma or degree.
(Foundation course publicity 2001)
This illustrates that although the foundation course is a ‘practical introduction’,
it is essentially about developing knowledge rather than practice skills. This
extract also flags up the importance of study skills, discussed in 4.4.8. The
Introduction and Study Guide states that the aims of the foundation course
were to enable students to:
205
• broaden your knowledge and deepen your understanding of caring in all its
many aspects
• support you in developing study skills
• provide opportunities to explore the practical skills of caring and how to
develop them to gain vocational qualifications
(Foundation Course Introduction and study guide, 2001)
Unlike the practice learning course, therefore, the foundation course does not
involve the student in undertaking or reporting on actual practice and all the
assessment is academic, (that is based on reading and theoretical discussion
rather than based on accounts of practice) although this distinction is not
clear-cut as will be illustrated below in 5.3. The following short extracts from
the respective assignment guides illustrate the differences in focus for the
assessed writing on each course. The assignment guide for the practice
learning course suggests that:
The focus in assessing [the practice learning course] is on writing about practice,
and generating evidence of social work competence. Competence in social work is
defined as the product of knowledge, skills and values…’
(Practice Learning Course assignment guide, 2001)
Meanwhile the rationale provided for the foundation course is:
The [assignment] is an opportunity to show what ideas and knowledge you have
learnt from the [course materials]
(Foundation Course assignment guide, 2001)
206
Thus the assignments map against the primary function of each course: the
foundation course assessing students’ ability to demonstrate knowledge
through building logical, objective and evidence based arguments (Northedge,
1990, p. 143-4); the practice learning course assessing students’ ability to
relate theoretical learning to their developing practice skills.
5.3 Assessment expectations
5.3.1 Writing on the foundation course
Assessed writing tasks on the foundation and practice learning course are
referred to as both ‘essays’ and ‘assignments’ interchangeably, and this
practice is reflected in the speech of tutors and students, as will be seen in
data presented throughout this thesis. Neither course treats the ‘essay’ as a
contested or problematic text type. The work of Lillis (2001), discussed in
2.2.5, indicates the problematic way in which the term ‘essay’ is used loosely
to refer to institutionally labelled text types which signal very specific writing
practices. Although the use of ‘social sciences’ and ‘essay’ are problematic as
they presume a common understanding and usage, these are the terms used
in the course guidance and assumed by tutors and students to carry meaning.
Despite the problems associated with identifying a common understanding of
the academic essay, as noted by Lillis (2001, p. 58ff), the foundation course
contains extensive and relatively consistent guidance. The foundation course
(which provides the majority of guidance on writing skills) requires students to
demonstrate the ability to use their reading to develop an argument within
guidelines which are associated with a ‘social sciences’ ‘essay’. This is
207
provided both within the teaching materials (as study skills notes) and within
the assignment book. Guidance provided within the set study book, the Good
Study Guide (Northedge, 1990), suggests that students’ ‘essays’ will be
judged on their ability to:
… answer a set question, demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of new information, ideas and concepts, construct an argument, adopt an objective and analytical style and finally to write with clarity. (Northedge, 1990, pp. 147-155).
As a course aimed at students entering higher education with little or no prior
academic experience, the foundation course explicitly sets out to teach its
own version of the essay genre and guides tutors to assess student writing in-
line with these expectations. The assessment criteria against which students’
texts were assessed were as follows:
When marking your work, your tutor will consider the following questions:
• Have you clearly set out to answer the question and have you followed
the guidelines?
• Does your answer show a good understanding of issues and arguments
presented in the block?
• Have you drawn on relevant examples from the block to illustrate your
points?
• Does your answer make appropriate links to ‘real life’?
• Is the organisation of your answer clear and logical – presenting clearly
expressed, well supported and well balanced argument?
• Is your style of writing clear and easy to read?
• Have you included appropriate references to show where you have drawn
ideas, information and examples from?
(Foundation Course assignment book, 2001)
These assessment criteria highlight the importance of demonstrating
knowledge and also the clarity and organisation of the essays. The
208
requirement to make ‘appropriate links to real life’ is expanded in some detail,
instructing students to draw on examples of experiences of being a carer or
care-giver to illustrate broader theory-based discussion. This use of
experience should be ‘brief’, ‘objective’ and clearly linked to relevant
knowledge gained from the course. In addition to generic course guidance
relevant to all assessment tasks, the foundation course assessment criteria
refer students to assignment-specific guidance. It is noteworthy that there is a
high level of prescriptive detail provided at the task specific level, as is the fact
that both students and tutors have access to the same guidance. The only
additional information provided for tutors marking the foundation course
relates to grading bands and admissible content rather than how students
should organise and present their writing. The following extract from the
foundation course assignment book aimed at tutors and students illustrates
the level of detail provided for the first assignment:
If you turn to section 8 of this booklet (‘How to make good use of your own
experience’) you will find an example of how to relate a case study of your own to
these ‘complications’.
When you have made some notes from your reading, jot down a few notes of
what you might say in your essay. Then try sketching out some sentences to see
how they look. You could aim to organise your answer something like this:
An opening paragraph explaining briefly why it is important to be able to say who
is and isn’t an informal carer, and introducing your chosen person.
A second paragraph which starts to explain why it is difficult to decide if someone
is an informal carer, by taking the first of the four ‘complications’ and discussing
209
it in relation to your chosen person (don’t forget to name the complication and
explain how it related to your person).
Three more paragraphs doing the same for the other three ‘complications’.
A concluding paragraph saying whether or not your chosen person is actually
recognised as an informal carer, and whether recognition (or lack of recognition)
makes any difference. Then comment on how this case illustrates the general
problem of defining informal care.
This is just an idea to get you started, It isn’t necessarily the best structure for
your essay. You’ll see that the example near the end of Section 8 deals with both
interdependence and networks in the same paragraph.
(Foundation Course assignment book, 2001)
This level of prescription is not maintained as the course progresses, with
guidance gradually decreasing as students are expected to build their skills.
This example, however, illustrates the way in which students and tutors are
provided with detailed and relatively consistent guidance.
Perhaps partly as a result of this guidance, students interviewed reported
finding the foundation course relatively straightforward, David referring to it as
‘formulaic’ and Pamela suggesting that it was ‘easier’ than the practice
learning course. Patricia and David also both identified the foundation course
as having writing requirements similar to those they had encountered on
previous degree programmes. Patricia commented in relation to the
foundation assignment guidance that:
I didn’t read it much, I didn’t need them, I could do [with emphasis] (the foundation course).
P3: Patricia Interview: 14th June 2001
210
In summary, therefore, although the essay has been established through
research as being a problematic genre (Street, 1984; Lea, 1998; Baynham,
2000; Lea and Stierer, 2000; Lillis, 2001), the experiences of students in this
study were that the ‘essay’, as required of them on the foundation course, was
relatively straightforward. The reasons for this could have been the level of
prescriptive detail provided, and the relative consistency of guidance across
different sources (such as the assignment book, tutor guide, set book and in-
course study notes). In addition all the guidance was provided to both
students and tutors, facilitating a shared understanding of what was required.
This experience was not, however, shared on the practice learning course.
5.3.2 Writing on the practice learning course
Data from students and tutors suggests that the practice learning course
required a very different approach to writing from the foundation course,
despite not being presented as such in the course guidance. The
consequence of these differences appears to have been that students and
tutors in this study experienced the writing on the practice learning course as
considerably more challenging. Students’ grades on the practice learning
course (across the whole data set) were lower than on the foundation course
and, despite my questioning being comparative and introducing both courses
equally (see appendices 3 and 4), students’ discussion focused more on the
practice learning than the foundation course (for an illustration, see Appendix
10 which contains a full transcript of my second interview with Patricia).
211
The guidance provided to students on the practice learning course was
extensive and complex, and was spread across several documents, some of
which are cross-referenced to foundation course documentation.
The Practice Learning Guide provided information on general submission
procedures and generic assessment advice in addition to assignment-specific
notes on content. The DipSW programme guide contains information on the
assessment strategy across the whole programme, referring students to the
national standards against which they are assessed, information on
progression between levels and on exam boards. Finally, the foundation
course (including its study skills set book) provides detailed but apparently
generic guidance on academic writing, with very specific advice on essay
writing. A close examination of the assessment criteria on the practice
learning course illustrates that although they appear very similar to those of
the foundation course (quoted above) bullet point 3 below marks an important
departure:
1. Has the question been clearly addressed and have the guidelines been
followed?
2. Does the answer show a grasp of the key issues and arguments presented
in the course?
3. Does the answer indicate an ability to integrate learning from a range of
sources, reading, practice, personal experience, in a ‘reflective’ way, that
demonstrated critical analysis of practice?
4. Is the organisation of the answer clear and logical, with a clearly
expressed, well founded and well a balanced argument?
212
5. Have references been appropriately cited and has a full references list
been given at the end of the work?
(Practice Learning Course assignment guide, 2001)
Points 1, 2, 4 and 5 are very close to the criteria for the foundation course.
Point 3, however, contains a complex set of requirements relating to the
critical and reflective use of personal and practice experience, which should
be embedded in student texts. But it is the implicit interpretation of this point
by tutors (as discussed below in 5.5) that created particular difficulties for
students. This requirement, along with assignment-specific guidance, is the
basis for two key features of the practice learning course:
1. It required students to discuss their own practice experiences and
link these reflectively and critically to theory.
2. It required students to share personal experience, including
discussing values to an unusually high degree.
The focus on experience and values on the practice learning course
stemmed, in part, from the very different purpose of the assessment on the
course. The practice learning course set out to teach and assess the
application of theory and values to professional practice. The focus of the
foundation course, in contrast, was to prepare students for undertaking
academic study in the context of health and social care. Although values are
not mentioned in the assessment criteria of either course, they are mentioned
as required by the National Standards for social work education (CCETSW,
1995) and therefore feature in all of the practice learning courses’ assessment
tasks. These differences in the purpose of the courses had implications for the
213
ways in which students were expected to write. The requirement to write
about experience, in particular personal experience, and values marks a
departure from the essay genre taught on the foundation course. Although the
inclusion of experience in writing was clear in relation to content, the
implications of this for how students should write did not appear to have been
made explicit for students or tutors. The implications of this inconsistency and
the consequences of drawing such personal writing into the domain of
assessed academic writing are central to my thesis. Sources of guidance for
students and tutors about how to combine an academic essay with such
personal writing will be discussed in the following section. The implications of
attempting to achieve this somewhat vague target genre will be discussed
more fully in 6.6.
5.4 Guidance on how to write on the practice
learning and foundation courses
The practice learning course did not contain any teaching on writing or study
skills, although it did direct students to the foundation course for advice.
Students are advised in the practice learning course assignment guide that
the foundation course set guide to study skills, The Good Study Guide
…is a valuable source of advice, and you should use this, and the Study Skills
boxes in [the foundation course], to help you to improve your assignment writing.
(Practice Learning Course assignment guide, 2001)
The foundation course is described as providing teaching to enable students
to develop ‘study skills’ intended to be applicable in future study, including on
214
the practice learning course. It does this through regular study skills notes and
activities spread throughout the teaching materials and also through the set
study book. The Introduction and Study Guide to the foundation course states
that:
As a Level 1 course [the foundation course] assumes that you are new to degree
level study and offers plenty of support in developing the skills for moving on to
Levels 2 and 3.
(Foundation Course Introduction and study guide 2001 p. 5)
Within the foundation course materials, students are reassured that:
‘The Good Study Guide will give you a thorough introduction to all the skills you
need for success on this and any future courses you may take.’
(Foundation Course Introduction and study guide, 2001)
In addition to guidance on study skills provided in the foundation course,
students are encouraged to access university-wide generic paper and online
‘toolkits’, which are offered to support students in developing structural
language skills such as the appropriate use of grammar, syntax and
punctuation. This guidance also appears to add to potential confusion,
however, in relation to the requirement on the practice learning course to
include accounts of personal and practice experiences and values. The
following web-based toolkit on academic writing, which students were
encouraged to access, illustrates some of the contradictions contained in
written guidance:
Academic style
215
One key element of academic writing is to learn to move from the personal to the objective. The chart below shows how the two differ.
Personal Objective
personal writing
more objective academic writing
telling your own story
commenting on, analysing and evaluating someone else's ideas
using everyday words
subject-specific vocabulary
information from your own experience
using information from a variety of sources
http://www3.open.ac.uk/learners-guide/learning-skills/english/pages/academic_2.asp 15/09/04 14.10
This toolkit is intended to support students undertaking the foundation course,
including those on the DipSW, to improve their use of ‘academic English’. It
refers to writing ‘style’ which appears to refer to a range of issues including
content, vocabulary and voice. The column on the right, headed ‘objective’ is
intended to illustrate the target features of academic writing whilst the column
on the left illustrates what is presumed to be the contrasting features of
‘personal’ writing with which students may be more familiar. There are a
number of problematic assumptions here, including the assumption that
students will share a familiarity with ‘personal’ writing and that all academic
writing share the features identified in the ‘objective’ column. This is
specifically problematic in relation to writing undertaken on the practice
learning course. Although writing on the practice learning course is ‘academic’
in that it meets all of the criteria in the academic side of the table it is also
personal, involves narrative (telling your own story) experiential (information
from your own experience), emotive writing (personal feelings and views)
216
which at times involved the use of ‘everyday’ words, or conversational
language. Students are therefore implicitly required to write in such a way as
to meet apparently contradictory objectives and the written guidance does not
signal the expectation on the practice learning course that students are
required to meet the objectives on both sides of the table. This explicit
difference in required content between the courses within the context of an
implicit difference in writing conventions could be expected to lead to
confusion on the part of students.
The social work students were, therefore, provided with several sources of
generic teaching and support intended to help them develop writing skills, but
these did not seem to take account of course specific differences in writing
conventions. The message conveyed to students seemed to be that the
academic writing skills taught on the foundation course and through generic
toolkits were transferable across all courses, including the practice learning
course. This is significant firstly because it masks the existence of disciplinary
differences in writing conventions across the courses and secondly because,
based on data from this study, this message proved unhelpful for students.
5.5 The implicit understanding of tutors about
writing on the practice learning course
Based on data from the tutor telephone discussion, tutors appeared to share
the expectation that students’ writing on the practice learning course should
differ from that on the foundation course. This was despite the fact that there
217
was no explicit written guidance informing students of this difference in
expectations.
5.5.1 ‘A house style’?
All three tutors who participated in the telephone discussion were familiar with
the requirements of the foundation course as well as the practice learning
course. Two of the three tutors talked about an implicitly understood ‘style’ of
writing shared by practice learning course tutors:
Tutor 3: I think [tutor1] used the word house style and I say to students it is not just, it is about cracking the code. …it is a particular style of the social work essay, or what we are looking for in a social work essay, and it is hard for students to get the message especially when they have been undergraduates or have done other courses and have done [the foundation course] and they have been told in fairly rigorous structured terms on how to write an essay. Now we are coming on and saying well it is not like that, forget what you have been taught, the generic essay writing guidance that the [university] issue, not in the [assignment] book for the practice learning course but generically in the students’ guidance, there is no relation really in many ways as to what we are asking them to do in the practice learning course. I’d tell them to chuck that out the window and forget it basically.
Tutor 3: Tutor discussion: September 3rd 2002
In this extract Tutor 3 suggests that writing skills taught on the foundation
course, and previous undergraduate study, are actually unhelpful (I’d tell them
to chuck that out the window and forget it basically) as preparation for writing
on the practice learning course as it requires a different ‘style’ of writing. The
use of the term ‘style’ is in itself unclear, but given that Tutor 3 suggests that a
particular style is taught on the foundation course, s/he implies that style
incorporates conventions relating content, organisation, voice, vocabulary.
218
The Good Study Guide, for example, suggests that the target style for the
foundation course is ‘not a narrative – it is an argument’ and ‘aims to be
unemotional, detached and logical’ (Northedge, 1990). Given that the tutors
did not expect students to acquire an understanding of the different ‘style’ of
writing needed for the practice learning course through the guidance or
teaching materials, I explored with them where, if anywhere, such
understanding was taught:
Lucy: Where is it that you feel that students are taught to do this very specific kind of writing, if anywhere? Do you see it as something that is taught in the course materials or that you teach or that students come with or that they learn it through experience or any other ways?
Tutor 1: I think clearly we can do that through feedback comments on the [feedback sheet] and on the scripts and I will quite often put down for example, use of an analogy of peeling back layers of an onion, to try to get students to go a bit deeper to explain a bit more or to take things on. The course is more a journey rather than a destination kind of thing. So I think you can phrase things on script and [feedback sheet].
Tutor discussion: 3rd September 2002
Tutor 1 identifies his own feedback comments as being the primary source of
teaching for students to acquire the desired style of writing. There is also a
suggestion that in order to achieve this style a student needs to continually ’go
a bit deeper’, although it is not clear from this extract in what way students are
expected to go ‘deeper’.
5.5.2 ‘Academic’ versus ‘reflective writing’
A dichotomy appeared from the discussion between the need for ‘academic’
writing and ‘reflective’ writing. Tutors suggested that both were needed in
order to write a good assignment for the practice learning course but that
219
these two features were very difficult for students to combine in one text. By
‘academic’ writing, tutors seemed to be referring to writing containing the
features of ‘objective’ writing referred to in the toolkit table in 5.4. ‘Reflective‘
writing seemed to encompass writing which demonstrates the ability to share
personal experience. Unlike the foundation course, which primarily uses case
studies as the source of reflection, on the practice learning course students
reflect on their own experience:
Tutor 3: I mean the use of case study in [the foundation course] requires a bit of a shift really. Because in a sense you are moving from case study to self aren’t you?
Tutor 1: Tutor discussion: 3rd September 2002
Tutor 3 clarifies that on the practice learning course there is an expectation
that writing incorporates both an ‘academic approach’ and ‘the personal
reflection’ and that these elements should be integrated:
Tutor 3: There has to be a kind of integration of that academic approach with the personal reflection that the person needs to bring, in my view. A little bit of supporting evidence from sources outside themselves, as part of that reflective process, and I think that’s what a lot of students find difficult.
Tutor 3: Tutor discussion: September 3rd 2002 [my emphasis]
The challenge of integrating these facets of writing is recognised, therefore by
Tutor 3 but is further exemplified by the following comment from tutor 2:
Tutor 2: I tend to find that students who write a very academic and technical piece have great difficulty in getting into the kind of introspective, reflective approach. And some students can be very anecdotal and be quite reflective but don’t make the links between professional practice, course materials and underpinning concepts. You have the two extremes and you are looking for something in the middle.
220
Tutor 2: Tutor discussion: September 3rd 2002
This comment suggests that students, in the experience of this tutor, tend to
be good at one or other aspect of writing, but that most find it challenging to
integrate them both. The requirement to achieve integration is an issue I
return to in 6.3.1, where students talk of the difficulty they experience in
drawing together academic and reflective elements of writing. This dichotomy
between academic and reflective aspects of writing was further illustrated
through the anonymous marking of two practice learning assignments, which I
had asked the tutors to carry out (see 4.4.7). One of the two student texts was
perceived by the three tutors to be more ‘academic’ and one more ‘reflective’
(see appendices 11a and 11 b for anonymised copies of texts A and B).
Although there was broad agreement amongst the tutors on the strengths and
weaknesses of the two assignments, they were assessed very differently.
Text A was perceived as academically competent but ‘distant’, ‘detached’, ‘far
too philosophical’ and ‘lacking self awareness’. It was given the equivalent of
a fail by two markers and a 2:1 by the other (and by the student’s original
marker). Text B was judged as making an ‘honest attempt’ at being reflective
but lacking academic rigour, for example Tutor 3 commented that there was:
… scope for more extensive use of sources and analysis.
It was given the equivalent of a 3rd from two markers, a 2:2 from the other
(and the student’s original marker). The tutors involved appeared to identify
similar features in the two texts, but differed on how to reward different
aspects. The following comment is from Tutor 2 who passed text A with a 2:1:
221
Tutor 2: This is a very interesting and well thought out essay which includes a lot of reflection. However, it is in my view, written in rather general and academic style (not that academic is a bad thing!) rather than in a ‘personal’ style. I am left wondering a little about your actual values which I felt could be bit more explicit in part 1 and about the actual problems for you, rather than in general, in part 2.
Tutor 2:Tutor discussion September 3rd 2002: Commenting on text A
This extract illustrates the way in which Tutor 2 is struggling to articulate the
demands of writing on the practice learning course which simultaneously
needs to be both academically objective and openly personal. The following
two comments are from Tutor 1 and 3, who marginally failed the assignment:
Tutor 2: The student writes almost as an intelligent observer rather than someone who will have to go in to work tomorrow and make decisions based on values, amongst other things, For me, this conflicts with competence based models of assessment, as in the DipSW.
Tutor 2: Tutor discussion: September 3rd 2002 commenting on text A
And finally:
Tutor 3: Style is difficult to follow –not practice-based enough. This is not what is looked for on the practice course. Very difficult to get a sense of the student and the practice here. A number of broad based statements have been made, but lack of depth, sufficient analysis of self and practice actually make this piece rather thin (beneath the veneer).
Tutor 3: Tutor discussion: September 3rd 2002 commenting on text A:
The comments of the original tutor of the author of text A mirror those above
in asking the student to write less ‘hypothetically’ and to ‘personalise’ the
writing. These comments imply that, although the student may have
attempted to meet the requirements of the practice learning course, the
student’s text was viewed (negatively) as being substantially detached and
222
depersonalised. Whatever the motivation for the author’s apparent reluctance
to share more personal information, it appears that this failure to do so
contributed to two out of four experienced tutors suggesting a fail grade for
the assignment.
Text B caused less concern and was awarded a pass grades from all three
tutors, despite concern that it lacked depth of analysis and rigour in relation to
the use of quotations:
Tutor 2: I felt that the questions weren’t really answered clearly enough, as asked of in the rubric. Although there was referencing, I put here ‘little referencing’, by that I mean I felt some things were aerosoled in but without much development, you know and I felt they, if you used the course material, then I would expect the student to take on quite a wee bit from, you know, just blanking something in sort of thing.
Tutor 2: Tutor discussion: September 3rd 2002
Despite these observations about clarity, referencing and the quality of
discussion, all three tutors were more positive about the potential for the
author of text B to improve and move closer to the target style than for the
author of text A:
Tutor 1: I felt the student could have been more explicit more generally. I thought there were one or two errors spelling the author’s names and so forth which I have said could irritate a rigorous marker. I thought they used limited resources and references reasonably well and I have said as the [assignment] writing progresses with the student, if I had been writing this for one of my own students I would say, there was probably scope for improving and extending the analysis.
Tutor 1: Tutor discussion: September 3rd 2002
223
A similar view was expressed by Tutor 3, who focused more explicitly on the
development of reflective as opposed to academically ‘well written pieces’:
Tutor 3: [text] A is a technically better written piece of work. [text] B I think is better on the consideration of values. Now I am really very keen on well-written pieces of work, but you can work on that with the student who has got a basically decent level of literacy. What is harder to work on is somebody who is defensively academic, who wont ‘give’. For them to work on their values is more difficult. So on balance I would say, for example, the person in script B she could be worked with beautifully to actually develop her writing skills and they are not a bad standard. I have seen a lot worse but they could be developed further. So I want to give plenty of encouragement and feedback on that. Whereas [text] A writer, it would be harder.
Tutor 3: Tutor discussion: September 3rd 2002
Tutor 3 is not explicit about what she means by ‘well written pieces’, but her
allusion to the student’s text being ‘technically better’ and demonstrating a
‘decent level of literacy’ suggests that she is referring to writing which meets
conventional expectations in relation to surface features such as syntax and
spelling. Tutor 3 associates such ‘well written work’ with what is described
elsewhere in the interview as a ‘more academic style’, comparing this with the
more reflective, but perhaps less correct writing identified in text B. Tutor 3
also makes the striking comment that she would find it harder to work with a
student who would not ‘give’ rather than one who needed to develop writing
skills. This comment provides an important insight into the implicit
expectations of tutors in relation to sharing personal information, which is
apparently not optional and is perceived as a core requirement. I return to the
issue of sharing personal information in 5.6.
224
Data from the tutor discussion, therefore, suggests that there is a writing
‘style’ demanded by the practice learning course which is particularly complex
and challenging to achieve due to the range of targets that need to be hit:
Tutor 3: It is very difficult for students to include everything they need to include in the social work essay such as values, theory, method, legislation and so forth.
Tutor 2: Tutor discussion: September 3rd 2002
5.5.3 A lack of clarity?
The interviews with tutors provided an important insight into the lack of clarity
in tutors’ common understanding of how to assess student texts on the
practice learning course. Tutor comments contain numerous examples of
vagueness and uncertainty. Tutor 2 talks of the way markers ‘will kind of tune
in’ to student texts, Tutor 3 refers to looking for ‘something in the middle’ in
relation to the balance between academic and reflective writing and also to
tutors requiring a ‘little bit of supporting evidence’. In all these examples tutors
appear to struggle to explain their expectations of students’ writing for the
practice learning course. This lack of clarity illustrates not only the difficulty for
tutors in arriving at a shared understanding in order to achieve a common
marking standard, but also the reason for the level of confusion experienced
by students, as discussed below in 5.6. The ambivalence evident in data from
tutors also demonstrates the value of interview as a technique. Tutors’
discussion of their experiences of assessing student writing provides a
window onto the assessment of student writing unavailable from the course
guidance or comments on texts.
225
5.6 The experiences of students
In the following section I offer data from the interviews with the 4 case study
students, Patricia, David, Pamela and Bernie. These case studies suggest
that the participants interviewed faced particular challenges in writing the
practice learning course assignments which were not encountered on the
foundation course. Data from student interviews suggests that students
interpreted the written guidance provided (discussed in 5.2 and 5.3) as an
indication that rules of writing learnt on the foundation course should be
applied to the practice learning course. The interchangeable use of the terms
‘assignment’ and ‘essay’ also led students who had prior degree-level study to
presume the acceptability when writing on both courses of drawing upon
academic writing conventions associated with the essay learnt from previous
courses of study. Students also found that the particular requirements in
relation to sharing personal experience in the practice learning course
presented a challenge.
5.6.1 Grades as indicators of success?
A consistent theme arising from all of my interviews was the discrepancy in
grades between the practice learning course and the foundation course.
Students attributed the reasons for this discrepancy differently, but all shared
the same experience of receiving lower marks for their writing on the practice
learning course than on the foundation course. The following table illustrates
the discrepancy in grades between the courses at the mid point stage:
Figure 23: Comparison of grades
226
Student Practice learning course 2nd
assignment
Foundation course 4th assignment
% Difference + or -
1 55% 64% +9%
2 No comparative data
3 73% 90% +17%
4 (Pamela) 60% 80% +20%
5 No comparative data
6 54% 80% +26%
7 No comparative data
8 (David) 70% 94% +24%
9 34% 65% +31%
10 66% 88% +22%
11 No comparative data
12 60% 85% +25%
13 (Patricia) 67% 77% +10%
14 60% 82% +22%
15 Non participant
16(Bernie) No comparative data
This data indicates that students in this study were awarded between 9% and
31% higher grades for their foundation course written work. The 4 students
with no comparative data completed the foundation course prior to my study,
so their written texts were not available for inclusion. While students reached
their own personal conclusions about differences in grades (discussed further
throughout chapters 6 and 7), there was also an institutional explanation
227
which students may not have been fully aware of. The assignment book for
the foundation course advised tutors and students that:
In giving grades for your early assignments your tutor will make allowances for
the fact that you are still getting the hang of things. But by the later assignments
you will be expected to have a reasonable idea of what is wanted. In other words,
standards are applied a bit more strictly as you go along.
(Foundation Course assignment book, 2001, p. 12)
This guidance was reinforced in the assignment specific guidance on grading
each piece of work provided to tutors only. The reason for this guidance was
that the foundation course was a ‘supported’ first level course, which meant
that (as discussed above in 1.8.1.2) its assessment strategy aimed to enable
inexperienced students to gradually build their academic skills over the nine
months of the course. To achieve this, tutors were advised to begin with a
very low pass threshold which should gradually increase through the period of
continuous assessment. This strategy was employed to encourage and
support students who began the course with little or no prior experience of
academic writing. The final assignments and end of course examination were
assessed at level one, and so it was expected that students were performing
at this level by the end of the course. No such system of escalating
expectations was explicitly applied to the practice learning course, which may
in part explain the discrepancy between the foundation course and practice
learning course grades, based on the texts included in my data which were
mid way through both courses. However, students did not seem to be aware
of this system.
228
None of the interviewees mentioned the difference in assessment strategies
between the two courses, but all commented on the difference in their grades
and Patricia and Bernie attributed this in part to the strictness of the marker.
According to Patricia, her practice learning course tutor also told his tutor
group that he was a severe marker:
Patricia: I know that [practice learning tutor] is a hard marker and he made that absolutely clear when he started
P4: Patricia interview: 14th June 2001
Whilst the practice learning tutor’s comment may have been accurate (for
example he may have received feedback from his moderator10 that his
grading was relatively severe), the student experience also should be
considered within the context of the programme as a whole. Patricia and
David spoke very clearly about their own journeys towards appreciating the
way in which the practice learning course required a very different kind of
writing from anything they had experienced previously in higher education.
5.6.2 “Its getting it down in a format that’s acceptable to the
university” (Patricia)
Patricia was confident in her academic writing skills as well as her ability to
write fictional and experiential narratives, enjoying writing stories and long
letters. When she wrote the first assignment for the practice learning course,
10 At this university all tutors marking is sampled by an experienced colleague (the moderator)
who comments on both the assessment and quality of comment offered to the student.
229
she did not appreciate that anything different was required of her writing from
either previous academic study or the foundation course. Patricia was
consequently surprised by grades and feedback on her first two pieces of
assessed writing. She spoke of the frustration that she felt; she thought that
the particular ‘style’ expected on the practice learning course should have
been made explicit, for example through a preparatory workshop:
Patricia: What we should have had, Lucy, to start with was some sort of workshop giving us an idea of the style [for the practice learning course], it’s the style that is so different because D [the practice learning course tutor] wants ‘I want, I think, I feel, I felt’ whereas the, the foundation course is looking at writing in the third person, but D - well, you write that to your auntie Jane you don’t write it for a course. I’ve never written it for a course.
P5: Patricia Interview: 14th June 2001
This extract from Patricia’s interview highlights one of the most significant
differentiating features between writing on the practice learning course and
the foundation course. This difference is the requirement to write using the
first person, making the ‘self’ the primary subject of discussion and analysis.
The use of first person pronouns will be dealt with in some detail in 6.5.
Underlying Patricia’s comment, however, is also an important statement about
the expected content in relation to the self. This requirement raised a number
of emotive and identity issues for students, which will be dealt with in more
detail in chapters 6 and 7. In the context of this chapter, Patricia’s comment
appears to support the existence of a ‘house style’ on the practice learning
course which, according to data from tutor discussion, students were taught
through feedback rather than through written guidance. Data from Patricia,
Bernie and Pamela suggests that they found feedback from their tutors
230
inconsistent either between assignment tasks or with their understanding of
the written guidance.
In the following extract from my second interview with Patricia, she picks out
some specific positive comments noted by her tutor:
Patricia: I mean in his comments he talks about you know that I had worked hard to produce an essay that is honest, reflective, thought provoking flows well, follows the structure, well laid out, cases are very powerful and in the end [reading from the text] all in all a very powerful read [Patricia] well done.
P6: Patricia Interview : 14th June 2001
This comment hints at the complexity of what was expected of students from
their writing on the practice learning course (honest, reflective, thought
provoking, flows well, follows the structure, well laid out, cases are very
powerful). Three key words here (honest, reflective and powerful) are
associated with the requirement that students do not write dispassionately as
may be expected of academic writing on the foundation course, but very
personally about their own experiences and values.
5.6.3 “A slightly less academic essay” (David)
David also began the practice learning course with the expectation that he
would be writing what he understood to be ‘academic essays’. Feedback on
David’s first assignments, however, challenged his understanding of what
constituted ‘good academic writing’:
David: The challenge has not been the writing, the challenge has been I suppose not writing an academic essay.
Lucy: Uhu David: Because I thought that an academic essay was required rather than,
I think what appeared to be required, is I suppose, what I wrote was an academic essay for my first one and what I have written for my
231
second one is a slightly less academic essay. D2: David Interview: 17th April 2001
David struggled to find words to describe what was required of his writing for
the practice learning course, describing it as being ‘a formula I haven’t
cracked’ (David interview 17th April 2001). He discovered from the grade and
feedback on his early assignments that in writing what he perceived as an
‘academic essay’ he was not meeting the tutors’ expectations:
David: On [the foundation course] I’ve been getting sort of from 80s to 88s Lucy: Hmmm David: And yet for [the practice learning course] I’ve been getting 60s, 63,
67 and that’s because I find it much more difficult to write about the kind of less formal, less structured way
D3: David interview: 5th July 2001
In this comment David points to two problematic issues for him, the unfamiliar
writing conventions (‘less structured way’) and his personal discomfort in
writing about himself (discussed below and more extensively in 7.5).
5.6.4 “The writing is completely different” (Pamela)
Pamela also suggested that the requirement to recount experience and reflect
upon it involved a more complex use of tenses, which she found difficult:
Pamela: I feel that the style of the writing is completely different as well, in what tense you write in and things like that there are things like that I found difficult like I found I was going from past to present quite a lot.
PM2: Pamela Interview 2nd July 2001
By this Pamela was referring to the need to move between the past, the
present and the future in order to meet the practice learning course’s
requirement to recount experience (past), evaluate practice experiences using
theory (present) and then reflect upon applying new learning to future practice
232
(future). Pamela’s writing does indeed move between extensive passages in
which she narrates experiences in the past tense (At the age of seventeen I was
offered a job) and then moves into explaining how she acts now or will do in the
future. In these sections she uses a combination of the future tense (I will show)
and the present conditional (I would give). In the final section of her text, she
uses a combination of tenses:
Well, you have just read the account of my first day in the caring profession, which was eight years ago, but I can still recall it as if it had happened last week. It had a huge impact on how I deal with meeting new people both professionally and personally. I believe that a first impression is the most important influence you will ever have on a person’s opinion of you, or the service you represent. Pamela Practice learning course assignment 2 [my emphasis]
In this extract I have underlined the tenses used, which move from the past
perfect (have read) to the simple present (I can recall, I believe), to the future
again. Although Pamela’s impression that she used a more complex
combination of tenses on the practice learning course is borne out in her
texts, there is no evidence that she was unsuccessful in using them
appropriately. This suggests that the complexity of the writing generated an
anxiety for Pamela, despite the fact that she had the writing skills to manage
the task well. Pamela’s confidence in her writing will be discussed in Chapters
6 and 7.
5.6.5 “You’re just writing and making sure that everything is
there” (Bernie)
Unlike David and Patricia, Bernie did not conclude from her feedback that a
different kind of writing was required on the practice learning course. Having
233
had a very positive experience of developing her writing skills when she
studied the foundation course (a year prior to beginning the practice learning
course) she was confident in her ability to ‘structure’ her work, a term used by
Bernie to encompass not only the organisation of her text but also other
features, such as syntax, and indeed content. Her faith in her foundation
course tutor apparently gave her self-belief in her ability to write. When her
grades and comments on practice learning course assignments did not meet
her expectations, Bernie felt annoyed:
Bernie: That’s why I was annoyed that he [the practice learning course tutor] put down that my structure wasn’t clear because I aim to make my structure clear.
Lucy: Yeah. Bernie: I’m not trying to be big headed. Lucy: Yeah. Bernie: But I struggled with that and once I have got… I get something I
never sway from it. Lucy: Hmmmm.
Bernie: And I got that from doing [the foundation course] B5: Bernie Interview: 18th June 2001
The unexpected criticism of her ‘structure’, when Bernie believed she was
applying previous learning consistently, made her angry. Bernie directed this
anger at her tutor who, in Bernie’s view, was introducing inconsistent
expectations. Despite having read the written guidance meticulously, Bernie
did not seem to question whether the practice learning and foundation course
might require something different from her writing. Even by my second
interview with Bernie, she indicated that in her opinion there were no
differences between the writing requirements of the two courses.
234
Bernie does, however, express anxiety about the number of ‘rules’ which she
feels she needs to take account of when writing. In talking about her final
assessed text during the practice learning course Bernie comments on how
scared these rules make her feel about writing.
Bernie: They give you so much rules, you can’t do this and you mustn’t do that, you must ensure that you do this and if this is missing blah blah blah, there is so much you have to remember that you just get scared, scared that you are going to miss something out. There is so much to remember that you might miss it out…
Lucy: What effect do you think that had on the way that you expressed yourself?
Bernie: It [the amount of ‘rules]’ had a lot of effect [laughs] because you are just writing to pass.
Lucy: Hmmm Bernie: You’re not, you can’t express yourself and you can’t, you’re just
writing and making sure that everything is there. B5: Bernie Interview: 18th June 2001
Ironically, Bernie experiences these rules as impeding her ability to write
reflectively, to express herself. She does not specify in which documents she
drew out these rules, but the written guidance relevant to assessment on the
practice learning course is extensive, as discussed above in 5.3. Whilst
neither the teams that produced the practice learning course nor its tutors
may have intended that students actively use all of this guidance in writing
practice learning assignments, Bernie experienced this extensive advice as
an overload of ‘rules’.
5.7 Conclusion
Data discussed in this chapter suggests that students who undertook the
practice learning course and the foundation course were required to negotiate
some substantially ‘mysterious’ institutional practices (Lillis, 2001). Academic
235
writing on both courses was presented in written guidance as involving
‘essays’ based upon the conventions within the ‘social sciences’. This was
problematic partly due to the diversity of writing practices contained within the
concept of the ‘essay’, as discussed above in 2.5.2, but also because of
differences in expectations of students writing within the courses themselves.
Within the context of an academic literacies approach to student writing,
discussed above in chapter 2 (Lea and Street, 1998; Lea and Stierer eds.,
2000), the presumption of a generic set of academic writing conventions is
problematic, even within one ‘discipline’ and this is compounded where one
course of study includes diverse disciplines. The foundation course, as a
broad theoretical course providing the knowledge underpinning care, drew
upon a range of social science disciplines, including sociology, psychology
and social policy. This is significant as it places the foundation course within
the collection of ‘new discipline areas’ (Baynham 2000), which draw on
multiple disciplines, and discourses not only in the content but also in the
conventions of writing expected of students. In his study of nursing students,
Baynham (2000) identified that students encounter multiple discourses and
writing styles, and this is also the case for social work students.
While disciplinary diversity is one contributory factor to differences in
conventions of writing between the foundation and practice learning courses,
such conventions are compounded by the specific assessment methods and
guidance provided by each course. The writing expected for the practice
learning course is not only different from that taught in the foundation course,
but the conventions of which appear to be taught through the feedback on
texts from tutors. The written guidance advises students to use the study skills
236
teaching provided within the foundation course, while tutors recognised that
something different was needed and provided guidance through feedback.
This tutor guidance had the potential to be particularly inconsistent as, based
on the anonymous marking exercise and discussion, the tutors varied in the
features they valued and spoke in very imprecise ways about their
expectations. The sensitivity and intimate nature of the required personal
reflection potentially demands a level of trust and rapport not usually
associated with academic writing. Finally, the tutors viewed the practice
learning course writing tasks as both more challenging and more difficult to
mark. These issues raised by tutors appear to be consistent with the
experiences of students, who found the practice learning course assignments
and feedback a confusing and emotionally bruising experience.
237
6. Chapter six: reflective writing in social
work education
6.1. Introduction
In chapter 5, I presented data from the course guidance, interviews with
students and the tutor discussion which suggested that the writing expected of
students on the practice learning course was significantly different from that
on the foundation course. This difference was masked by written guidance,
which implied that academic writing conventions based on essayist practices
were straightforward and transferable across both the foundation and practice
learning courses. In this chapter I will focus primarily on the experiences of
students undertaking assessed writing on the practice learning course. I draw
upon the case studies of Patricia, Bernie, Pamela and David to present data
relevant to their experiences of engaging in reflective writing and the particular
writing practices that each student developed in order to manage the writing
tasks on the programme. I outlined my conceptualisation of writing practices
in 2.3, and in my use of it here I am foregrounding the three dimensions
identified there: the circularity of the actions involved in writing practice, the
importance of human interaction and the recognition of emotion.
The chapter is organised into four broad areas of discussion, each focusing
on one of three themes which were common to all of the students in their
experience of reflective writing. These themes are:
238
• Managing the tensions (between ‘academic’ and ‘personal’ elements
of the writing)
• The impact on the writing tasks of sharing personal experiences
• Use of first person singular pronouns
Evidence from each of the four case studies is presented under these themes
in turn. ‘Managing the tensions’ refers to the diverse ways in which students
developed writing practices to negotiate the conflicting information about how
they should write within the context of the particular demands of the practice
learning course. ‘The impact of sharing personal experiences on the writing
task’ explores the ways in which students interpreted and responded to the
different ways in which they were expected to write about personal
experiences on the practice learning course and the foundation course. ‘Use
of first person singular pronouns’ draws upon the heuristic developed by Tang
and John (1999) discussed in chapter 4. I will provide a brief analysis of the
ways in which students appear to be using the first person on the practice
learning and foundation courses.
From this point on in my thesis I draw a distinction between academic writing
described as an ‘essay’ (exemplified here by writing undertaken on the
foundation course) and ‘reflective writing’ (exemplified by writing undertaken
on the practice learning course). This form of academic writing is distinct from
what has often been referred to as ‘reflective writing’ as discussed in 2.5.2
(Walker et al., 1985; Boud, 1999; Moon, 1999) in that it is assessed and
requires very specific treatment of experience and values integrated with
theory, as I explain in the following sections.
239
6.2 The nature of reflective writing
I established in chapter 5 that tutors had significantly different expectations
about student texts on the practice learning course and the foundation course.
This led me to draw a distinction between the ‘essay’ as constructed by
guidance on the foundation course and what I am calling here ‘reflective
writing’. One of the clearest distinguishing features, based on data from the
tutors and course guidance, appears to be the requirement for students to
successfully integrate discussion of theoretical knowledge with personal
experience. I will refer to these two specific dimensions of reflective writing as
‘theoretical writing’ and ‘experiential writing’:
Figure 24: Social work student writing
Student writing
Academic writing Writing in practice
Reflective writing
Theoretical writing Experiential writing INTEGRATION
Essay
The above Figure illustrates the levels involved in social work student writing,
divided broadly into academic writing and writing in practice. This thesis is
concerned only with the academic writing, practice writing referring to a
240
diverse range of writing undertaken whilst students undertake learning in the
field, such as letters, reports, meeting minutes and recording of interventions.
Within the sphere of academic writing, I have identified at least two distinct
text types required of students, the ‘essay’ and ‘reflective writing’. Whilst the
term ‘essay’ is used with caution, as I recognise the diversity of institutional
practices that lie behind it, it serves the purpose in this thesis of marking a
distinction between the writing conventions broadly applied to the foundation
course in comparison with the reflective writing required on the practice
learning course. Focusing in on reflective writing, tutor data suggests that
there is another distinction which I am referring to as ‘theoretical’ and
‘experiential writing: the former refers to writing within reflective writing which
demonstrates theoretical understanding or knowledge based on sources other
than experience; ‘experiential writing’ refers to the unusually personal domain
of experience which is a required element of reflective writing. It includes both
practice and personal experience and involves discussion of personal and
professional values and personal change. In Figure 24 I have overlapped the
theoretical and experiential elements as, according to data from tutors, the
target is for these elements to be integrated, although they also acknowledge
the considerable challenge involved in doing so.
In this chapter I will be focusing on reflective writing and in particular on the
ways in which students reported their experiences of engaging in writing
about experience in the context of theory on the practice learning course.
Although the foundation course also encouraged students to use specific
experiences to illustrate knowledge gained from the course, such experiences
were of a different order. This is because experiential illustrations were
241
required to be objective and to be secondary to demonstrating knowledge and
understanding within specified limits of objectivity, brevity and relevance:
And remember that your experience by itself doesn’t prove anything. You are too
involved in it to be a reliable witness. It is simply useful illustration.
(Foundation Course assignment book, 2001, p. 6)
However, assessment criterion 3 of the practice learning course, discussed
above in 5.3.2 and repeated here, suggests that the inclusion of discussion of
personal experience and values is of equal importance along with other
‘sources’ such as ‘reading’.
3. Does the answer indicate an ability to integrate learning from a range of
sources, reading, practice, personal experience, in a ‘reflective’ way that
demonstrates critical analysis of practice?
(Practice Learning Course assignment guide, 2001)
Further evidence of the centrality of experience and values on the practice
learning course is to be found in the assignment questions themselves and
the accompanying guidance. This suggests that there are some significant
differences in expectations of student writing, such as the inclusion of
personal experience, which are played out through tutors’ feedback and
grading of assignments. In the following extracts from the first assignment on
the practice learning course, I have underlined the references to experience
and values:
242
Read the course materials in study Unit 1, paying special attention to the sections
on Biography and Identity.
Write a commentary on these sections, in which you are required to:
1. Describe those personal experiences you consider to have been particularly
important for your professional development
2. Explain which aspects of the course materials seem especially significant to
you both personally and professionally
3. Discuss one practical personal experience that has affected your practice and
values and give examples of how it has done so
(Practice Learning Course assignment guide, 2001, p. 9)
Similarly in the second assignment:
1. Describe how your previous practice experience has affected your personal
values and the ways in which they have changed in response to that experience
2. Describe your current understanding of professional social work values and
how you have arrived at this understanding. Outline those issues which you find
problematic and want to work on during your present placement.
3. Illustrate your answer with examples from your previous and present practice.
(Practice Learning Course assignment guide, 2001, p. 10) [my emphasis]
These assignments illustrate the centrality of personal and practice
experience and values, but also of the requirement to demonstrate personal
change through writing. The requirements are presented as relating to content
with no recognition or discussion being offered that such assignments will
243
involve significantly different demands of students’ writing nor the unusual
nature of such content in the context of academic writing. As will be discussed
in the following section, these requirements had significant implications for
both students writing on the practice learning course and tutors assessing
such texts.
6.3 Managing the tensions
All of the students focused their discussion more on the practice learning
course during their interviews, presenting writing on the foundation course as
either more familiar to them or problematic. Individual responses to writing on
the practice learning course varied, however, depending on each student’s
experience of attempting to manage the tensions that arose for them in
negotiating an unfamiliar set of expectations.
6.3.1 Integrating experiential and theoretical writing
Tutors interviewed claimed to reward an integration of theory and experience
on the practice learning course and saw this as a distinguishing feature of the
course compared with the foundation course (see 5.4 above). Tutors also
acknowledged that achieving such integration was a challenge, and this was
borne out by the ways in which students managed the task, with all of the
case study students opting for a degree of separation of theoretical and
experiential writing. On the practice learning course, such a separation was
facilitated for students by the assignment question being presented as
involving three steps (see above in 6.2), firstly requiring students to focus on
personal reflection, secondly to offer an interpretation of professional values
244
and the thirdly to illustrate their answer from practice. Analysis of the case
study of Patricia provides an insight into why she elected to separate
experiential and theoretical writing, both in her mind as she drafts and in her
final text.
Patricia divided her practice learning assignment into two halves, the first
focusing on experiential writing and the second part on theoretical. In part one
for example, she includes only one reference to an authoritative source, her
discussion focusing on her own experiences whilst in part two she includes
more theory, a total of eight references to authoritative sources. Even within
part two, however, Patricia does not integrate her experiential and theoretical
discussion. To illustrate this point, I have included a copy of the second half of
Patricia’s practice learning assignment 2 for reference (Appendix 12b). In this
assignment the knowledge, or theory, used relates to professional social work
values and ethics rather than law, which was the example she discussed in
her interview (see extract P8 below). In the second half of this assignment
paragraphs 1, 5 and 7 do not include any personal experience but instead
offer discussion of authoritative sources that Patricia selected as relevant to
her discussion. The remaining paragraphs contain no references to external
sources; they include Patricia’s narrative accounts of her personal
experiences and reflection on these narratives. On the foundation course,
despite its practice orientation, such a division between theory and ‘practice’
is not evident in Patricia’s text, and use of theory and referenced sources are
evenly spread throughout her assignment.
245
Based on her interview, Patricia did not appear to find sharing personal
information particularly difficult. Her frustration was that the requirement to do
so was not made clearer earlier in the course (as discussed in 5.6.2.). Once
she was aware that she was expected to write differently on the practice
learning course from the foundation course she found including experiential
alongside theoretical writing made the process of crafting her writing difficult
and time consuming. Verbalising and then translating her ideas into writing
was considerably more of a challenge for Patricia when the subject of
discussion was herself and her own values:
Patricia: They (values) are implicit in my work but I struggled to find it, I needed to have a right good look at what I’m doing and think, well oh yes, in this particular piece of work well the fact that I did this means that I must’ve thought that … I mean you don’t go around every day acknowledging your personal values, you’ve got to think about what they actually are.’
P7: Patricia Interview: : 14th June 2001
The thinking processes involved in writing about personal values and
experiences resulted in Patricia mentally partitioning writing about her
personal experiences, values or feelings (what I am calling experiential
writing) from writing about the knowledge that she had acquired from the
course such as ‘legal stuff’ or theoretical writing:
Patricia: I’m writing what I’m thinking and then I’m thinking, oh no I’ll change the tense on that or re-read that bit and then think oh yes I can put that in here you see here. I’m going through and thinking oh yes well I did that here so when I come to type it up I need to put something about that there and something about that in there but I can’t get my head around thinking what that is because that’s legal stuff and I’m not doing legal stuff I’m doing guts you know got to write about feelings blah blah blah so I’ll just put that in and when I come back I’ll add that.
P8: Patricia Interview 1: 14th June 2001
246
The extract above illustrates some of the complexity that Patricia indicated
that she had to deal with in the practice learning course texts. Patricia refers
to theoretical writing ‘legal stuff’ (or evidence of her learning from the course
materials) and experiential writing ‘guts’ and her experience of trying to
include both in her texts.
Patricia’s difficulty integrating experiential and theoretical writing on the
practice learning course resulted in her developing strategies to manage this
challenge. In her drafting process she made a note of where theory or
experience might be relevant, but concentrated on developing only one
element at a time in her thoughts. One example of Patricia developing
different strategies on each course was her preference to retain her drafts for
the practice learning course as hand written notes until she had organised her
ideas and content. On the foundation course assignments, however, she
drafted directly onto her PC as this laborious process of separating ‘guts’ from
‘legal stuff’ was unnecessary.
Bernie also opted to separate theoretical and experiential writing in her
practice learning course writing. Through her interview Bernie had made it
clear that she did not think that there were differences in expectations of her
writing between the foundation and practice learning courses:
Lucy: Do you think that they wanted a different structure in this [the practice learning course], now looking back?
Bernie: No, no not at all. I think what I did I got my ideas, that’s how I did it. I got my ideas just poured out of myself and then structured it.
Lucy: And then structured it? Bernie: And did the academic side of it afterwards. I just separated the two,
without thinking about it I just did it.
B6: Bernie Interview: 18th June 2001
247
My use of the word ‘structure’ here was intended to refer very broadly to the
way in which Bernie organised her writing, in the awareness that the
foundation course laid down specific essayist requirements in relation to the
use of an introduction, main paragraphs containing the argument and a
summarising conclusion. In this extract Bernie appears to suggest that she did
not believe a different structure was required for her practice learning course
writing. She describes a process whereby she allowed her ideas to be ‘just
poured out of myself’ before she overlaid them with the ‘academic side’. As
with Patricia’s drafting process, Bernie needed to ‘pour’ her thoughts onto
paper and only after she had done this was she able to think about organising
her answer. The two parts of Bernie’s work also show differences in both the
frequency of references to authorative sources made and also the use of first
person singular pronouns (which I discuss below in 6.5). As with her peers,
Bernie makes more extensive use of references to authorative sources in the
second more theoretical part of her assignment. There are, in fact, no
references to published sources at all in the first part of Bernie’s text. This
evidence of Bernie’s decision (conscious or unconscious) to separate her
theoretical and experiential writing is only apparent in her texts, as she does
not refer to this directly in her interviews.
6.3.2 Responses to tutor feedback
Patricia’s decision to divide experiential from theoretical writing suggests that
she was not aware of tutors’ expectation that these elements should be
integrated, or that she found it too difficult to achieve. This mis-match in
expectations appears to arise from the apparently shared understanding of
tutors not being conveyed in writing to students through the course guidance.
248
This may account in part for Patricia’s frustration with her tutor’s comments. In
discussing her writing on the practice learning course, Patricia expressed
frustration that she tried hard to respond to her tutor’s feedback by ‘making a
link’ between the course materials and her experiences, but still received a
comment encouraging her to ‘say a little more’ about her personal
experiences:
Patricia: The one thing he said to me when I did ring him up was that you need to make a link, I told him what I was thinking about, and I said I want to use this. And this is the experience and he said that sounds fine but you must make a clear link and I thought I’ll make a bloody link if it kills me and I did and he has written ‘a clear link Patricia’ you know ‘It would be worth saying a little more about how you see these issues now, has privacy become more important for you?’ And I’m thinking, well I don’t know that you want to know that.
P9: Patricia Interview : 14 June 2001 th [my emphasis]
Patricia suggests here that even when she tries to adapt her writing to what
she thinks is her the practice learning course tutor’s advice, she still
experiences his feedback on her writing as critical and is disappointed. Here
she was advised to make a ‘clear link’ between her experiences and the
theory presented in the course; he was possibly encouraging her to attempt
more integration. Feedback on her text praises her for making a link, but then
suggest that she should say ‘a little more’ about the link between her reading
on issues of privacy and her own experience. In the absence of clear written
expectations of her writing on the practice learning course (see chapter 5)
Patricia seems to suggests that she needed to guess or anticipate what her
tutor will want from her in each piece she writes. The issue of the impact of
engaging in such personal writing is explored further in chapter 7.
249
Bernie experiences similar frustration with her tutor’s feedback, in particular in
relation to her tutor’s criticism of her ability to ‘structure’ her work. There is in
fact little evidence of such criticism of her writing, although feedback on
Bernie’s text does suggest that it would be improved by closer links being
made to the course materials:
‘I think that most (if not all) the 6 values are contained in this section – have another look and see if you can find them. For e.g. values 1; self-reflection, is in * 11can you identify points to tie in the others? Tutor comment on Bernie’s practice learning assignment 2
The only written comment relating to structure, however, is a positive one:
I felt that this essay is a step on from [the first] in many ways. For starters, it’s clearer and flows in a structured way… Bernie practice-learning course assignment 2 feedback comment
In addition to these comments there are extensive positive remarks including:
…a strong essay that covered the relevant ground in a careful and detailed way...it is clear that you worked hard on this essay B7: Bernie practice-learning course assignment 2 feedback comment
Despite these comments, Bernie interprets her tutor’s feedback as significant
and unwarranted criticism. As with Patricia, Bernie perceived her grade (of
60% / 2:2) as an implication of failure but struggled to understand from her
tutor’s feedback where her weakness was. She focuses at various times in
11 The mark * relates to a cross-reference made by the tutor to illustrate a particular point
marked in the student’s text.
250
her interview on advice from her tutor that she should include more
references, and interpreted a comment on her spelling and grammar as a
criticism of her structure. The tutor comments on three language errors: he
amended ‘discrimination’ to discriminatory’, ‘By just bring up the matter’ to
‘Just bringing up the matter’ and ‘if feels’ to ‘if they feel’. In his summary
comments, Bernie’s tutor makes a general statement in relation to spelling
and grammar:
Keep an eye on grammar / spelling – only occasionally does this become an issue, and a quick double check will help smooth the spelling and grammar bits I have corrected. B8: Bernie practice-learning course assignment 2 feedback comment
It is unclear whether Bernie interpreted this particular comment as a criticism
of her use of ‘structure’, but she appeared to feel that some aspect of her
writing was being unjustly criticised due to her ethnicity (this is discussed
further in 7.3.2).
Bernie’s prior experiences of writing and responding to feedback (on a
previous degree and on the foundation course the previous year) were
significant to her writing on the practice learning course:
Bernie: You see I have come a long way because when I was at University. I would never read the teachers’ comments because they would put me down and I didn’t like it. I mean you think any comment is going to put you down.
Lucy: Hmmm Bernie: And it was not like that on the foundation course. I took everything to
the book, I went to all the classes, everything to the book, all the ideas that they gave you I took on board and when someone advises you to read the comments because it will help you, I did it to the letter, I did it.
Lucy: Hmm
Bernie: And when that lady gave advice I took it.
251
Lucy: Hmm
Bernie: She gave me some good advice and I moved on.
B9: Bernie Interview: 18th June 2001
This extract from Bern e’s first interi view with me illustrates the confidence that
her
Bernie: She [Bernie’s foundation course tutor] made it quite clear how [to
her foundation course tutor was able to build in her, and the enduring
influence of the lessons she learnt. Bernie’s ability to take advice from
tutors changed the way in which she wrote her assignments both on the
foundation course and on subsequent courses:
write the foundation course essays] I followed her instructions she helped me improve and then moved on but I always make sure that my work is clear.
B10: Bern ne 2001
angry when she received what she
is
I’m a very good person at reflecting, I reflect and move on
ie Interview: 18th Ju
Consequently she was confused and
perceived as critical comments from her practice learning course tutor. Th
was compounded by the fact that Bernie saw the practice learning course as
an opportunity to use her ability to reflect:
B11: Bernie interview: 20th March 2001
Bernie understood that the practice learning course involved reflection and
Bernie: I always know that for a person you need to reflect on where you are
she relished the opportunity to write reflectively:
coming from and what you are doing all the time and whether it is right or wrong- and I need to do that as part of religion and faith, I have to do that all the time and I am always reading self-help books. So when I picked up this course I said yes [with emphasis]! I really wanted… but it never really helped me.
B12: Bernie Interview: 18th June 2001
252
Recognising that the practice learning course provided an opportunity to
reflect did not, however, signal to Bernie that the course would have different
conventions in relation to student writing.
6.3.3 ‘I found I was going from past to present quite a lot.’
Pamela appeared clear about her tutor’s expectations that she should write
about her own experience but expressed anxiety about her ability to meet the
writing demands of the practice learning course. This was partly due to her
reluctance to write about herself and partly because she found that the
practice learning course involved the use of more complex language,
particularly in her use of tenses:
Pamela: I feel that the style of the writing [on the practice learning course] is completely different as well, in what tense you write in and things like that there are things like that I found difficult, like I found I was going from past to present quite a lot.
PM3: Pamela interview: 2nd July 2001
This issue of Pamela’s use of tenses on the practice learning course is
discussed above in 5.6.4. What is relevant here is that Pamela’s belief that
the basic literacy demands of the practice learning course were greater
increased her level of anxiety about producing texts on this course.
6.3.4 ‘I think that basically it is the requirement to put the ‘I’
centre stage.’
David differs from the other students in this study in that he is very confident
in his academic writing skills and ability to adapt his writing to different
requirements. He shares with Pamela a reluctance to talk about himself,
however, and this together with his initial principled objections to assessed
253
reflective writing results in David also being challenged by writing on the
practice learning course. David demonstrates a clear understanding of the
expectations of his writing on both courses, the foundation course having
been familiar based on his first degree and the practice learning course based
upon his understanding of the written guidance:
David: I think that basically it is the requirement to put the ‘I’ centre stage in the practice learning course. I find it a little irritating and I have to be honest I feel that it is sufficient to demonstrate your understanding.
D4: David interview : 5th July 2001
Unlike Patricia and Bernie, David recognised the different expectations of
writing across the foundation and practice-learning courses from the start, but
he gleaned this not from the written guidance but based upon a brief comment
by his tutor:
David: I knew what the formula was before the first one [assignment] Lucy: Where do you think that you got that from? From the essay title, or
from what [practice learning tutor] said? David: I think the key phrase, I can’t remember where it came from, I think it
was probably one of [practice learning tutor’s] phrases when he said you will be using the phrase the I, the I is what you will be writing. Now probably in all the other essays I have ever written in my entire life I have never written, I believe, I think, you know? at all.
Lucy: The clue that you should use the first person in fact gave you a lot more information about the formula?
David: That’s right yeah. Lucy: You deduced from that? David: I understood what was required. And I said to [practice learning
tutor] when I handed my first essay in you’re not going to like this [laughs]
D5: David interview :5th July 2001
This quotation illustrates both David’s confidence in understanding the
expectation of this switch in the way that he writes, but also hints at his
resistance to complying, in that he is aware that his tutor will not be pleased
254
with his first assignment. This resistance seems to stem from a number of
factors for David. He found it difficult to accept that the reflective writing was a
valid scholarly exercise requiring genuine academic rigour when it directly
contradicted his prior educational experience:
David: On the practice learning course the challenge has not been the writing, it has been not writing an academic essay. Because I thought that, I suppose, an academic essay was required rather than I think what appears to have been required, is … what I wrote is a slightly less academic essay. [laughs]
D6: David interview :5th July 2001
David is clear that the use of the first person as a central requirement
differentiates reflective writing significantly from other academic writing he has
undertaken in higher education. He also signals here a perception that the
differences in the practice learning course (such as the centrality of writing
about the author’s own experience in the first person) makes the writing ‘less
academic’. In doing so David is making a statement about what he personally
understands to be ‘academic writing’ and that in his opinion the practice
learning course breaks too many conventions to count as truly ‘academic’.
6.3.5 Summary of student experience in managing tensions
This section has illustrated the diverse reactions of the four case study
students to managing the tensions between the foundation and practice
learning courses. David fully understood the implications of writing reflectively
on the practice learning course, but was resistant to complying due to
principled objections. Pamela was reluctant, though willing, to try and write
experientially, but found this difficult. Patricia was willing, but did not realise
that experiential writing was permitted, and then felt she had lost the
255
opportunity to gain higher grades. Bernie, despite recognising the need for
reflective content, did not believe this involved any adaptation from the way in
which she wrote on the foundation course. In the following section I move on
to explore the impact on each student of attempting to meet the requirement
to write experientially.
6.4 Experiential writing: the impact of writing
about personal experience and values
Writing about personal experience was an issue for all of the students
interviewed in this study. Bernie and Patricia relished the idea of writing
reflectively about their experiences. Pamela and David, who had a clearer
understanding of the different nature of experiential writing were reluctant or
found it difficult to write about themselves. As discussed in the previous
section, these four students also varied in the degree to which they
appreciated the need to adapt their writing in order to include experiential
writing.
6.4.1 Patricia
Patricia’s feedback on her writing for the practice learning course led her to
believe that, despite having shared very intimate experiences and reflected on
values which placed her in an emotionally vulnerable position, she had not
met her tutor’s expectations. In the following extended extract from Patricia’s
writing, she reflects on working with a dying woman and the consequent
impact of this work on her own thoughts about death and bereavement:
256
P10: Patricia practice learning course assignment 2 [‘Ann’ is not the service user’s real name]
P11: Patricia practice learning course assignment 2
These extracts illustrate the way in which Patricia shares her feelings about
working with a terminally ill woman preparing for her own death, a painful
257
process which is compounded by institutional practices which deny her
privacy and individuality. Through considering Ann’s loss of identity, Patricia is
confronted by not only her own identity but her own death. This experience
motivates her to take action in her own life to prepare for any unexpected
incapacity. This extract therefore involves Patricia in sharing deeply emotive
personal information about herself. Despite this intimate disclosure, Patricia is
encouraged by her tutor to provide even more reflection on her thoughts and
feelings about her death both prior and subsequent to this experience, leading
Patricia to understand that she had underestimated the depth and intimacy of
the experiences expected of her by her tutor. Her tutor’s comments are both
on the text (‘It would be worth saying a little more about how you see these issues
now? Has privacy become more important? Seems so, and worth looking at what this
meant before the case happened’) and reinforced in the summary comments,
underlined here:
‘I think it is worth reflecting upon the way in which this case helped you to effectively step into the service users’ shoes in some ways – not completely of course, but share worries about the future, plans to be completed etc clearly struck a chord with you and perhaps you are looking about how you have developed as way of coping with fears that we all have to some degree in a more conscious way. Remember that looking at change implies saying where you were before the situation arose – that would be useful to comment upon in the future in relation to writing about personal development.’
Patricia the practice learning course assignment 2 text summary comments. [my emphasis]
Whilst recognising the value of Patricia’s writing about her experiences in this
text, her tutor is also encouraging her to evaluate the impact that this sensitive
experience had upon her ‘personal development’. The use of the word
258
‘personal’ is significant here. The curriculum for the DipSW certainly
encourages students to develop the ability to reflect upon ‘professional
development’, but here the tutor takes the expectation of sharing experiences
a step further to encompass the ‘personal’, a step beyond Patricia’s
expectation. It also appears that Patricia’s tutor is asking for further reflection
on her own values and personal responses to a professional experience. The
specific issue he appears to want ‘more’ on is the way in which Patricia’s
values and behaviour have changed over time in response to a specific
incident, in other words evidence of her ability to reflect and then change her
practice. This example is indicative of not only the depth and extent that
students are expected to share personal experiences in practice learning
course assignments, but also the way that personal change (relating to beliefs
and actions) is expected. This marks a significant departure from the target of
‘objective’ writing required on the foundation course where personal change
does not figure at all. It also raises issues about students’ emotional
responses to writing and receiving feedback on experiential writing which will
be discussed in more detail in 7.2.2.
6.4.2 Bernie
Bernie expresses strong feelings about her tutor’s perceived failure to value
the way in which she has written about her personal experiences in her
practice learning text. As stated above, Bernie perceives herself as someone
who is able to reflect well and sees this skill as an integral part of her identity.
It is a strength which she feels she has and which others need to learn. She
also elects to write openly about an experience of witnessing racism in a team
to which she belonged. The following extract from her writing illustrates
259
Bernie’s use of experiential writing and her ability to integrate it with
theoretical writing:
Extract from Bernie’s 2nd practice learning course assignment
This extract demonstrates Bernie’s integration of experiential and theoretical
writing. She moves from narrating her own experience, to offering her
thoughts and feelings about this experience, to making a link with an
authoritative source which she sees as supporting her view. Although this
integration demonstrates her compliance with the assignment instructions,
Bernie suggests that her tutor criticises her reflections:
Bernie: I think he was looking at it in academic terms and I think he was looking at it... I think he was forgetting that where you were supposed to be coming from for a practice and value side rather than thinking book [tapping the desk with her pen]. Like he was thinking this isn’t in there and that isn’t in there. But realised that I am in there and that it the true me, and there’s nothing wrong with that person.
B13: Bernie interview : 18th June 2001
260
There is no written evidence on the text, however, that Bernie’s tutor was
critical of her writing about personal experience, which he described as
‘powerful’ and ‘relevant’. Despite this she suggests that her tutor was unable
to recognise and understand her as an individual. Based upon the text and
interview alone is it difficult to find evidence to substantiate Bernie’s feelings
about her tutor’s lack of empathy; she is clear however that she believed the
fact that he was a white man was significant in her perception of his ability to
understand her writing:
Bernie: I think he was taken aback when he read it. I felt it made him think. Because I think anybody would stop and see another perspective on how Black people think and that we don’t all think that you’re all prejudiced, but we do think that you are sometimes… If it was a woman that was black.
Lucy: They would?
Bernie: They would have looked at it in a different way.
B14: Bernie interview : 18th June 2001
In this extract Bernie makes an important point about addressivity (Lillis,
2001); she feels that if she had been writing for a black woman they would
have been able to appreciate and value her experiential writing in a way in
which her tutor, as a white man, could not. This could have been one reason
for Bernie’s frustration with her practice learning course tutor, demonstrated
by, for example, her belief that he unjustifiably criticised the way in which she
structured her writing. Bernie went beyond suggesting that her white male
tutor was not in a good position to fully empathise with her experiences
described in writing, but also attributed his criticism of her writing (as she
perceived it) as stemming from personal prejudice. Bernie’s disappointment
with the practice learning course was even greater than it might have been as
261
she had initially welcomed the anticipated opportunity to use her reflective
skills through writing about her experiences.
6.4.3 Pamela
Pamela portrays herself as a person who lacks confidence in writing about
herself; she finds it hard to believe that she has anything of interest to say and
can become very anxious over her studies (see discussion in 7.4.1). Despite
this, one of Pamela’s first positive memories of writing in an academic context
was when she wrote a reflective piece for her schoolteacher about her
experience of being bullied about her weight. She had taken the opportunity
presented to her by her schoolteacher to write about a very painful experience
and the experience of writing and sharing the piece of writing has remained in
her mind since childhood. Although Pamela does not provide sufficient
information about this writing task to make a meaningful comparison with
reflective writing on the practice learning course, this early experience does
suggest that Pamela felt something when writing about herself which she did
not feel about her other academic writing. From this I suggest that it would be
reasonable to conclude that such reflective writing both stood out in Pamela’s
mind as different and that it had a powerfully emotive impact for her. Despite
this early positive experience of writing personally, Pamela identified the
reflective element of writing on the practice learning course as difficult:
262
Pamela: [The practice learning course compared with the foundation course] is all I think or I feel or I felt. It’s [the practice learning course] all quite reflective writing; it’s quite difficult to get my head around when I first started. But I think that’s the main one, even though you have to back it all up by theory it’s a lot of writing about yourself which I found extremely difficult at first, why I did this and why I did that and if you did this could it be better. And I found that, whereas [the foundation course] is quite academic, everything is there, you read the course and then you do your assignment
PM4: Pamela interview: 2nd July 2001
This extract exemplifies the experience of both tutors and students in this
study. The foundation course is seen as more conventionally ‘academic’ (the
foundation course is quite academic) but it is also perceived as having more
explicit expectations and straightforward content (everything is there, you read
the course and then you do your assignment). Pamela suggests that,
although both courses require theory, the distinguishing feature of the practice
learning course is a lot of writing about yourself. She also identifies the
expectation (highlighted by the feedback on Patricia’s text in 6.4.1) for
evidence of personal change (why I did this and why I did that and if you did
this could it be better). Pamela articulates in PM4 (see underlined text) the
need for the student not only to reflect on an experience but also to write
about how this reflection would alter their practice in the future, a process
which could be described as a full reflective circle from experience, through
reflection to revised practice.
Through the process of writing down difficult practice experiences, Pamela
discovered that the strength of the emotive impact of the original event was
reinforced.
263
Pamela: I think it’s the process of not realising how much of an impact some of these things that have happened have actually had on you and on the [practice learning] course it’s: well I do this because that did happened - in this assignment it was, I was treated urghh I can’t believe, but it was nothing on the day but now I look back I’m like can’t believe, I was uncomfortable I felt like a nobody really. Its like realising that, that had an influence on what I do today. I’m not very good at talking about me, I’m terrible at blowing my own trumpet. I get told at interviews that I’ve got to blow your own trumpet - and I’m not very good at it.
Lucy: If you had been talking rather than writing it would still have been difficult?
Pamela: Yeah yes Lucy: Do you think the writing made any difference the fact that you were
writing rather than talking about yourself? Pamela: Yeah - I think I found it easier to write about it but it’s still, I can’t see
why anyone is interested in me so that’s how I feel, this is me but is it really interesting?
PM5: Pamela interview: 2nd July 2001
Pamela indicates in this extract that it was easier for her to write down and
reflect upon such experiences than it would have been to have talked about
them, a sentiment which was not shared by David (discussed below in 6.4.4).
Through reflecting and writing about a painful memory with the illuminated
hindsight of new learning, Pamela is able to empathise with her younger and
less experienced self. However, despite this more confident perspective, she
is still surprised that her writing is of any interest to others. At the end of this
extract there is an indication of Pamela’s low self-confidence again:
I can’t see why anyone is interested in me, so that’s how I feel this is me, but is it really interesting?
PM6: Pamela interview: 2nd July 2001
Pamela’s belief that her writing should be ‘interesting’ to her reader is another
example of students’ concerns with addressivity (see above in 6.4.3). Pamela
264
also raises the questions of the perceived purpose of academic writing
generally and reflective writing in particular. Pamela’s comment seems to
imply that, even if her writing is also about demonstrating academic and
professional skills, she feels that it should maintain the interest of her tutor.
Pamela’s discussion of her writing again raises the significance of the
emotional impact of reflective writing. This will be discussed further in 7.2.2.
6.4.4 David
David’s reluctance to delve into a personal discussion of his values is
illustrated as he moves into reflecting on practice scenarios. David elects to
use hypothetical practice scenarios to test out his value position, rather than
reflecting upon the impact that actual practice experiences had upon his
values and beliefs. For example he draws upon the hypothetical scenarios of
a fraud committed by a service user, inappropriate behaviour by a colleague
and managing pressure at work to illustrate his values. This differs from
Patricia and Bernie, who focus on both real practice experiences and their
own values and beliefs more directly and could therefore be argued to
consequently have taken great risks in their disclosures.
In my first interview with David he expresses some reticence about the
necessity and justification for the practice learning course requirements to
include discussion of personal experience (as opposed to demonstrating
knowledge alone) in academic writing:
David: I suppose don’t want to give too much of myself in an academic essay, largely because I think that its, this is going to sound even worse now. People can say …
Lucy: Hmm
265
David: anything Lucy: Hmm David: You can write anything down and I could join in with that but values
are demonstrable in action. I have got 17 - 18 years or whatever it is and I am happy to talk about it if it is a two-way thing.
Lucy: Hmm David: And I know this is a slightly false environment, but say in supervision
your practice teacher says…I’m quite happy to talk about it. Lucy: Hmm David: Because there is a chance to nail misconceptions or explain things
in perhaps more detail or just give a slightly softer personal point of view.
Lucy: Hmm David: Demonstrating understanding, I don’t think that there is room in your,
what, 2000 words or whatever it was you can’t do it properly. Lucy: Hmm David: Demonstrating understanding. I’m not going to try and explain
myself in 2000 words.
D7: David interview : 5th July 2001 [my emphasis]
David acknowledges here that he feels personally uncomfortable with sharing
experiences in his writing. In the underlined section David provides another
example of the particular significance of addressivity on the practice learning
course (see 6.4.4 and 6.4.3). For David the personal nature of this writing
makes the addressee significant and he suggests that the content is
inappropriate for a written communication context, as opposed to face-to-face
with his practice supervisor. He also questions whether writing about values
and experience in this way is a valid method of assessment due to the risk of
misconceptions arising from trying to ‘explain myself in 2000 words’.
Here David expresses something both important and complex about the
nature of writing about personal experience and the relationship with his
reader. As an experienced practitioner David recognises the importance and
266
relevance of exploring personal reflection as part of his professional
development. He objects, however, to doing so in the context of writing where
his ability to express himself is limited both by a word count and by the lack of
dialogue with his addressee; there is a need for such communication to be a
‘two way thing’ which he implies is lost in an exchange of academic writing.
He also suggests that the authenticity of his reflections cannot be judged
outside of his direct practice, something his tutor does not have access to. In
this argument, therefore David is not only demonstrating a sophisticated
understanding of what is required of his writing on the practice learning and a
rationale for the relevance of reflective writing, but also a convincing case for
assessed writing being an inappropriate context for such reflection to take
place.
David’s tutor encourages him to be more concrete in his discussion of values,
basing them on real experiences rather than focusing on hypothetical
scenarios:
It would have been really useful to pick up on an example in the advisor role where something came up that did challenge you…Framing things up in that way would have made your comments more concrete … David: Practice-learning course assignment 2
Although David’s tutor awarded a pass 2:2 for this assignment, his comments
suggest that he wanted David to talk more directly and openly about himself in
asking David to write less hypothetically’ and to ‘personalise’ his writing. This
assessment of David’s work implies that although David may have attempted
to meet the requirements of the practice learning course, despite his evident
skill, his writing remained substantially detached and depersonalised.
267
Despite David’s reservations, his resistance to writing reflectively weakens
slightly by his second assignment:
David: I am warming to the task slightly but I still feel that it is sufficient to be able to demonstrate understanding in writing and demonstrate values in action. That is how it should work.
D8: David interview: 25th July 2001
This resistance does not prevent David from attaining good passes in his
practice learning assignments (his second assignment was awarded 70%)
although (as with all students in this study) this was well below his grades in
the foundation course which were consistently over 90%. David’s self-
assessment was that he was a reluctant player is illustrated by his comment
that:
Had I let myself go and not been so just bolshie about it I probably would have enjoyed it even more.
D9: David interview: 5th July 2001
Here David’s reflection on engaging in reflective writing suggests that his
initial resistance weakened as the course progressed and that he had some
regret that his initial response prevented him from enjoying this writing more.
These reflections again suggest a significant emotional response to this
particular kind of writing which was not evident in students’ discussion of the
foundation course.
6.4.5 Summary of the impact on students of writing about
personal experience
Throughout this section all of the case studies illustrated the unusual nature of
writing on the practice learning course and that, regardless of the degree of
willingness or success in writing in this way, it raised issues for them which
268
did not exist on the foundation course. The requirement to write experientially,
and in particular to write about personal beliefs and values, resulted in some
specific issues being foregrounded, such as the relationship with and identity
of the addressee and the students’ response to feedback. There were also
issues raised in relation to the students’ writing practices, such as the ways in
which they coped with trying to integrate experiential and theoretical writing,
which posed a technical and psychological challenge for Bernie, Pamela and
Patricia. In the following section, in order to understand one aspect of the
technical implication of writing reflectively, I explore the use of first person
singular pronouns on each of the courses studied.
6.5 Use of first person singular pronouns
Through my data analysis it became increasingly clear that one of the defining
features of writing on the practice learning course was the explicit requirement
for the author to locate their own experiences and reflections at the centre of
their texts. This feature of writing was represented most obviously through the
use of first person singular pronouns. This led me to question whether the
ways in which the pronouns I, me and my were used could be quantified
through the texts themselves. This would enable me to offer some evidence of
the visibility of the self in student texts to support student and tutor views, as
expressed through the interviews, that the practice learning course required
authors to place themselves at the centre of the text. To undertake this
analysis I drew upon Tang and John’s (1999) research into pronoun use, as
discussed in 4.11.4, in particular their categories of ‘I as guide’, ‘I as a
architect’ and ‘I as recounter of the research process’.
269
As outlined in 4.11.4 my initial analysis was based on all the practice learning
course student texts and the second of the two foundation course texts
collected. The practice learning course texts were analysed in two sections,
labelled A and B. This was because all texts analysed were divided into two
parts in line with the structure of the question (see 6.3.1). The question for the
practice learning course is repeated here for reference. Part A relates to point
1 of the question and B to point 2; students appeared to understand to apply
point 3 across both parts:
1. Describe how your previous practice experience has affected your personal
values and the ways in which they have changed in response to that experience
2. Describe your current understanding of professional social work values and
how you have arrived at this understanding. Outline those issues which you find
problematic and want to work on during your present placement.
3. Illustrate your answer with examples from your previous and present practice.
(Practice Learning Course assignment guide, 2001, p. 10)
I undertook a count of the incidence of first person singular pronouns (I, me
and my), and this count was repeated by a second person independently.
After comparing these counts, the results indicated the following findings:
Figure 25 Use of the first person singular pronouns (I, me and my) on the practice learning and foundation courses.
Student Practice learning course Foundation course
Part A Part B Total Total
1 57 46 103 7
3 48 46 91 0
270
4 (Pamela) 26 53 79 4
6 37 70 107 19
8 (David) 61 11 72 3
9 80 48 128 1
11 41 43 84 2
13 (Patricia) 46 47 93 2
14 68 30 98 5
16 (Bernie) 36 33 69 No data Note that students 2,5,7,10 and 12 were not included in this analysis as they did not study both courses during the period of data collection.
From this it can be seen that first person singular pronouns (I, me, my)
appeared considerably more frequently on the practice learning course (69-
128 usages) than on the foundation course (between 0 and 19 usages). In 6
out of the 10 data sets there was a greater use of first person singular
pronouns in part A of the practice learning course than on B. This could
possibly indicate that part A led students to write more experientially than part
B due to the focus on recounting experience rather than demonstrating
understanding (see underlining in the assignment questions above). Thus it
could be argued that the use of first person singular pronouns increased
where there was a greater requirement to write experientially.
Having identified that students uniformly used first person singular pronouns
more extensively on the practice learning than the foundation course, I
undertook my second analysis using three of Tang and John’s categories (‘I
as guide through the essay’, ‘I as architect of the essay’ and ‘I as opinion
holder’) in addition to my categories of ‘I as narrator’ and ’I as reflector’,
outlined in 4.11.4. I introduced these positions as a result of finding that the
271
majority of incidences of first person singular pronoun in my student texts
could not be accounted for by any of Tang and John’s categories. I adopted
Tang and John’s approach of determining the role of the pronouns identified
through determining the meaning at sentence level. As with Tang and John’s
research (Tang and John 1999 p. S37), determining the meaning at sentence
level led to occasions where the role of the pronoun could be argued to align
with more than one category. Generally however, analysis at sentence level
provided a more satisfactory unit of meaning than working at the level of
individual phrases.
My particular difficulty in applying Tang and John’s taxonomy arose from a
fundamental difference between the English Language essays used in their
research and my own practice learning course texts. Tang and John’s
taxonomy associates authorial power with a particular text type, labelled as an
essay, which is concerned with constructing argument based on primary
research or research-based literature. They define the concept of authority as
involving:
• ‘a right to control or command others’
• ‘knowledge or expertise in a particular field’
• ‘the quality belonging to an author, where ‘author’ is used in Ivanič’s
(1995 p. 12) very specialised sense of ‘a maker of meaning’.
Adapted from Tang and John, 1999, p. S26
The task of the author in practice learning course texts differs from Tang and
John’s texts in the centrality of the author and therefore also the nature of
272
authorial presence. In writing practice learning course texts, the author is
expected, in addition to building an argument in relation to a body of research
or disciplinary field (as might be required in an ‘essay’) to reflect on
themselves and their own experiences. This involves the author looking both
outwards towards a body of research or disciplinary field and inwards towards
their personal experiences, values and self-reflection. The involvement of this
inward focus necessarily involves an explicit subjectivity (or personal view in
relation to the text) which is not normally associated with academic texts.
Such subjectivity involves a kind of originality which could be described as
authority, although perhaps not in the form anticipated by Tang and John.
Given these differences between the text types used by Tang and John and in
my own study, it is not surprising that the same taxonomy did not fit
comfortably with my data or written texts. For example I found no examples of
the use of first person singular pronouns in my sample of texts which could be
attributed to the positions of ‘I as recounter of the research process’ as neither
course text in my study involved students participating in or recounting
primary research. I also found no examples of ‘I as the representative’
(usually used in the plural to represent a notional group of people), or ‘I as
originator’. Of these the most complex distinction was posed by ‘I as
originator’, whereby the author constructs ideas or concepts as ‘new’ and
claims authority for them. As suggested above in this section, it could be
claimed that through writing subjectively about themselves, student writers on
the practice learning course are inevitably offering concepts which are original
because they are based on unique experience. I would argue however, that
the uniqueness of the experience on which the students’ writing is based does
273
not necessarily mean that the author is making authoritative claims and that
the subjective nature of the practice learning texts could be seen to preclude
such claims.
Setting aside these three positions of ‘I as the representative’, ‘I as recounter
of the research process’ and ‘I as originator’ I was left with ‘I as guide through
the essay’, ‘I as architect of the essay’ and ‘I as opinion holder’, all positions
which I found could be applied to my set of texts. My additional categories of ‘I
as narrator’ and ‘I as reflector’ arose from my analysis of the texts where the
reflective writing of the practice learning course involved students in two
particular aspects of writing about experience:
Aspect 1: Students provide narrative accounts of their own
experiences, both personal and in the context of professional practice.
Aspect 2: Students provide reflective analysis of their experiences,
linked to relevant discussion of theory or other authoritative sources.
Thus experience is not only narrated but becomes a central object of
reflection, rather than the students’ (professional) experience being used as
supporting evidence, as is the case on the foundation course. I have drawn on
an extract from Patricia’s texts to illustrate the use of first person singular
pronouns which did not sit easily within any of the positions offered by Tang
and John (1999).
274
Patricia practice learning course assignment 2
Patricia uses aspect 1 of first person singular pronoun use (I, me and my) to
describe her experience (I have worked). In addition, she uses aspect 2 to
reflect upon those experiences (I reflect that), and also to express her feelings
about her experience (I feel for her). In this example the positions of narrator
and reflector are clearly distinguished from each other. This was not the case
in many other examples, where reflection and narration were closely
integrated. The following example (taken from an extract of David’s practice
learning course text presented in full below):
What were the values I had when I started work 19 years ago? I believe,
reflecting on them now that they were fundamentally the same core values that I
hold now.
Practice learning course assignment 2, David [my emphasis]
In this example David uses the first person singular pronoun ‘I’ 4 times, but
taking this sentence as a whole, it is not easy to distinguish specifically where
he is narrating and where he is reflecting. However, the whole sentence offers
275
a good example of ‘I as narrator-reflector’ and is typical of many similar
examples of the way in which narrator and reflector cannot easily be
untangled, where their meaning is determined at sentence or even at
paragraph level. Such entanglement did not appear to arise with the other
positions, perhaps because the pronouns fitting the other positions identified
in my texts samples frequently appeared alone within a sentence or
paragraph, unlike the pronouns associated with ‘I as narrator-reflector’, for
example:
Within this essay, I am going to explore the issues around identity, and why it is
important, particularly for people who live in residential care, and how the
residential staff help the individual to maintain this.
Foundation course assignment 4, Pamela [my emphasis]
Here Pamela uses ‘I as architect’ in the introduction to her Foundation course
essay, ‘I’ appears as a single pronoun within this introductory sentence.
Further examples of the entanglement involved in ‘I as narrator-reflector’ can
be seen from the following extracts from practice learning course texts written
by students 1 and 10:
One family in particular that I worked with, made me question my values and
how I impose these on others.
Practice learning course assignment 2, Student 1 [my emphasis]
The service is totally different as at present I am the purchaser of services and
not the provider. This to me has opened my eyes to a whole range of experiences
as when I started my placement I felt de-skilled.
Practice learning course assignment 10, Student 1 [my emphasis]
276
In both these examples, as with David’s text, the narrator and reflector
positions are effectively inseparable at the level of individual pronouns and
therefore I have focused on the meanings that seem to be operating at
sentence level. In the text written by student 1, her first pronoun could be
identified as narrator (‘One family in particular that I worked with’) but the
following phrase in which me, I and my appear includes both narrator and
reflector. The same could be argued for the text from student 10. Again the
first pronoun used could be identified as narrator (‘The service is totally
different as at present I am the purchaser of services and not the provider’)
but the remainder of the extract, containing me, my and I, involves both
positions.
For the purposes of analysing my data, therefore, I have analysed incidences
of ‘I as narrator-reflector’, counting all examples of first person singular
pronouns (I, me and my) appearing in sections of text where the sense
implies the narrator-reflector position, as in the examples above. In the
position of ‘narrator-reflector’ the student is describing or recounting their
experiences (narrator). Within the same texts, students are also using this
experience as the focus for their reflections (reflector). Such reflection takes
place in relation to links with theory but also their own personal values and
beliefs. Thus the use of first person singular pronouns to narrate experience
becomes the focus for reflections on associated theory or values and is
associated with the expression of emotion. Using this revised taxonomy, I
repeated my analysis, this time categorising the use of first person singular
pronouns (I, me and my) into the following positions:
277
• ‘I’ as the guide through the essay
• ‘I as the architect of the essay
• ‘I’ as the opinion holder
• I as narrator-reflector
Given the difficulty in making a clear distinction between ‘I as narrator’ and ‘I
as reflector’, I counted every individual pronoun which I categorised as
narrator or reflector as one narrator-reflector pronoun. For example in the
extract from student 10 (referred to above and repeated here) I counted 6
uses of ‘I as reflector-narrator’:
The service is totally different as at present I am the purchaser of services and
not the provider. This to me has opened my eyes to a whole range of experiences
as when I started my placement I felt de-skilled.
Practice learning course assignment 10, Student 1 [my emphasis]
Figure 26 illustrates the significance of the narrator-reflector position,
particularly on the practice learning course. As in the previous analysis,
students texts were only included where participants were undertaking both
courses, with the exception of Bernie who is included here as student 16:
Figure 26 Count of pronouns categorised by catagory of ‘I as Guide’,’ I as Architect’, ‘I as Opinion holder’ and ‘I as Narrator-reflector’
Student Guide Architect Opinion holder
Narrator-reflector
Totals
PL F PL F PL F PL F PL F
1 0 0 1 1 1 6 101 0 103 7
3 0 0 9 0 0 0 82 0 91 0
4 0 0 1 2 1 1 77 0 79 4
278
6 0 0 0 3 1 0 106 1 107 4
8 1 0 5 1 1 1 65 1 72 3
9 0 0 1 1 1 0 126 0 128 1
11 2 0 1 0 0 0 81 2 84 2
13 2 0 0 0 1 0 90 0 93 0
14 0 0 4 3 0 0 94 2 98 5
16 0 No data
7 No data
4 No data
58 No data
69 No data
4 – Pamela 8 – David 13 – Patricia 16 – Bernie
From this data, it appears that although there was no significant pattern in the
appearance of Tang and John’s catagories across the two courses, narrator-
reflector did appear significantly more often in practice learning course
student texts and accounted for the majority of incidences of first person
singular pronouns.
Drawing on Patricia’s foundation course text (student 8 above) I have selected
one of only two sentences in this text containing first person singular
pronouns. Here she appears to restrict her use of first person singular
pronouns to one very specific context where she marks an observation as
‘experience’ (from my own experience I can see that) and uses this
experience as evidence to support her argument alongside the referenced
quotation from Killick.
279
Patricia the foundation course assignment 4
This very limited use of first person singular pronouns is different from the
extensive personal reflections expected in the practice learning course texts.
In her practice learning text she links her experience with a number of
references to theory such as the concept of empathy, positive identity,
labelling and institutional treatment of ‘difficult’ patients. She also links her
experience to the professional social work values of working in partnership,
advocacy, promoting dignity and offering choices. This illustrates the very
close relationship between the narrator and reflector dimensions, the author
presenting the experience (narrator) and then using it as the basis for
developing a reflective discussion (reflector). The following extract is from
Patricia’s practice learning course and illustrates the narrator-reflector
position:
280
Patricia the practice learning course assignment 2
Throughout this section of her assignment ‘I as narrator-reflector’ appears in
Patricia’s text (I identify, I have...taken steps, should I ever be diagnosed, I
have made a will, I have disposed of, I feel that). Despite respective
similarities between ‘I as recounter of the research process’ and ‘narrator’ and
between ‘I as opinion holder’ and ‘reflector’, there is an important
distinguishing factor. As the narrator-reflector position focuses on personal
experience to narrate experience and then reflect upon experiences, it has the
potential for a greater emotive involvement on the part of the author, as
illustrated in the extract above from Patricia’s practice learning course text.
Here we can see the depth of emotion involved in Patricia’s experience, for
example her use of the phrase ‘unfathomable loss’ marks a departure from
more detached academic writing as she illustrates her empathy with Ann
before moving on to make connections with the course materials and more
theoretical references to identity and labelling theory, for which her tutor
praises her. Patricia’s use of first person singular pronouns, therefore,
281
appears to be both selective and closely linked to her perception of the level
of intimacy involved in her writing. In the foundation course she broadly avoids
first person singular pronouns. In the practice learning course she employs
what I have termed the narrator-reflector position in order to meet the
demands of more experiential writing.
The case study of Bernie did not include a foundation course text, but the
following extract from the introduction to Bernie’s practice learning course
assignment shows Bernie’s use of first person singular pronouns:
Bernie practice learning course assignment 2
This extract from Bernie’s practice learning assignment contradicts her stated
belief that, she does not use first person in singular pronouns in either course.
However, it contains examples of both Tang and John’s ‘I opinion holder’ and
‘I as architect’, illustrated here, as well as further examples of ’I as narrator-
reflector’. Bernie begins with the passive voice (a summary of a previous
practice will be given), then switches in the next sentences to ‘I opinion holder’
(I have also recognised) although it is an unconventional use, and moving
finally to ‘I as architect’ in the last line (I shall outline the issues I find
282
problematic). Bernie’s text primarily features examples of the narrator-reflector
position, for example from the above extract:
…I am able to continue …my current understanding …I have arrived at my understanding
…the issues I find problematic B16: Bernie practice learning course assignment 2
It could be suggested that the inconsistency between Bernie’s belief that she
had not used first person singular pronouns in her academic writing and her
actual usage in the texts results from her attempts to re-draft her assignment
into ‘reflective writing’, particularly in the first part where the assignment
question is more experiential and less theoretical.
In Pamela’s practice learning course text she describes past events whilst
offering reflections on these experiences in the present or even in the future
as she considers how her future practice will change. The complex movement
in time may explain her perception that the practice learning course
demanded a more complex use of tenses than the foundation course (as
discussed in 5.6.4). The use of ‘I as architect’ appeared equally spread across
not only each part of the practice learning course but also her foundation
course. Pamela reserved the use of first person singular pronouns in her
foundation course for the introduction and conclusion only. This marked
difference suggests that, despite her apparent lack of confidence, Pamela
seems clear about the differences between the ways in which she is expected
to write on each of the courses and to follow this through in her writing.
283
Finally, where David used first person singular pronouns on his foundation
course text, it was more often in the position of ‘I as architect’ through his text
rather than to place himself as the ‘narrator-reflector’:
David foundation course assignment 2
In the above extract David is drawing on his own practice experience, which is
permitted but not required in foundation course assignments. Despite this use
of his experience, David only uses a first person singular pronoun in his last
sentence (I will return to this issue later) and positions himself as, in Tang and
John’s taxonomy ‘I as architect’, (Tang and John 1999). David’s practice
learning course assignment, in contrast, contains a total of 72 uses of first
person singular pronouns. Throughout David’s practice learning assignment
he positions himself as ‘I as narrator-reflector’ but avoids using ‘I as architect’,
as illustrated in the extract below:
284
Practice learning course assignment 2, David
Any guidance or signposting is restricted to part two of the assignment (where
the emphasis switches from narration of experience to discussion) and
remains in the third person, for example:
To expand on the latter point is to investigate the nature of one’s understanding
of social work values
(Practice Learning Course assignment guide, 2001, p. 10)
From this it could be argued that David was demonstrating his understanding
of the difference required of his writing on the practice learning course and
was using first person singular pronouns accordingly. Where he was not
285
required (or chose not to) to write experientially, he reverted to the use of the
passive voice.
This analysis of the use of first person singular pronouns resulted in some
consistent findings. These findings appear to back up the experience of
students that the practice learning course required them to write in a very
different way from the foundation course. All students used first person
singular pronouns significantly less where they were not required to write
experientially. Within the reflective writing of the practice learning course,
those students who separated out experiential from theoretical writing made
greater use of first person singular pronouns in the experiential sections. The
theoretical sections, however, still contained a significantly higher incidence of
first person singular pronouns than the foundation course texts. Drawing upon
Tang and John’s (1999) taxonomy, an analysis of the texts in the case studies
also suggested that although texts featured ‘I as guide’, ‘I as architect’ and I
as opinion holder’, the most common use of first person singular pronouns did
not fit into any of the six catagories. This appeared particularly in texts
containing experiential writing, and I have referred to it here as the ‘narrator-
reflector’ category. These linked positions are distinctive, in that they relate to
the author describing experiences, values or beliefs (narrator) and then
reflecting on their thoughts and feelings about these experiences, values or
beliefs. This experiential content, moreover, is treated as authoritative content
by tutors and students, in the same way as a research or reading source
might be.
286
6.6. Conclusion
Student texts on the practice learning and the foundation course are referred
to at various times in the course guidance as being ‘assignments’ or ‘essays’
with no particular distinction between the two. Based upon data presented in
this chapter, however, it appears that undertaking writing on the practice
learning course generated issues for students which did not apply to the
foundation course.
One central issue arose from the implicit nature of expectations of students’
texts, expectations shared by tutors but only conveyed to students through
written feedback or discussions in tutorials. The diversity of writing
conventions, identified by researchers such as Lea and Street (2000), remind
us that assumptions cannot be made that students or tutors who move across
disciplinary areas (as well as between institutions) will share a common
understanding of particular terms and the conventions that lie behind them.
Within academic communities, the use of terms such as ‘essay’ suggest that
they convey a common understanding of a text type against which students
will be assessed, whereas in fact expectations are implicit and diverse. The
requirements of different writing conventions differ but are frequently not
made explicit to the student. Curry and Lillis suggest that::
Our implicit knowledge of what to expect from text types in response to certain prompts, such as ‘discuss’,‘ critically evaluate’,’ compare and contrast’, informs the judgements that we make about the success of students’ texts as a whole. The way we can generalise text types enables us as teachers to isolate certain traits and make them explicit to students, but we need to bear in mind that text types vary in response to the function that a text performs, which is not always reflected in the descriptive term applied to it. (Curry and Lillis, 2003, p. 21)
287
This suggests two levels of implicit understanding. Firstly, the label attached
to the text type such as ‘essay’, ‘reflective commentary’ or even ‘assignment’
may all in fact refer to identical expectations, but equally could refer to very
diverse text types. In the programme studied, terms such as ‘essay’ and
‘assignment’ were used interchangeably but did not communicate to students
the differences required in particular texts. In this discussion I have illustrated
the ways in which each of the students faced different challenges arising from
the ‘mysterious’ practices and developed writing practices to manage them.
Patricia slowed down her drafting process, making paper notes to enable her
to separate out ‘guts’ from ‘theory’. Bernie similarly needed to make a
separation, but she did this ‘without thinking about it’. Pamela’s anxiety was
heightened by what she perceived as greater technical demands on her
writing posed by the practice learning course. This resulted in her drafting
very quickly directly onto the computer so that she reduced the time she had
to worry. David’s writing practices focused on coming as close to the
objectives of the practice learning assignment as he could without disclosing
more personal information than he was comfortable with. All four students
were challenged to some degree by the demands which arose from the
requirement to integrate emotive and theoretical writing.
A second important issue arose from the personal nature of reflective writing,
and in particular the experiential aspects in which students wrote about
personal experiences, beliefs and values. The inclusion of this relatively
unusual content in academic work raised several issues for students. Pamela
and David spoke of their reticence or reluctance to include such personal
information whilst Patricia and Bernie devised strategies to separate out
288
experiential and theoretical writing, as thinking about (and integrating) the two
together was so difficult. The emotive content of experiential writing also
appeared to sensitise the way in which students responded to feedback and
also the significance of the identity of the addressee. An analysis of the use of
first person singular pronouns further substantiated the very different nature of
the practice learning texts, particularly where students wrote experientially.
Not only were first person singular pronouns used significantly more
frequently in the practice learning texts, but students used them in a very
specific way which did not appear to conform to any of the categories
suggested by Tang and John (1999). In order to talk about this usage, I have
referred to it as ‘I as narrator-reflector’’, a category used where the author of
the text is describing experiences, values or beliefs and their thoughts and
feelings about these experiences values or beliefs.
In the following chapter I focus in more closely on the individual student
experience of writing about values and experience, drawing upon the
discussion of writer identity outlined in chapter 4, in particular the additional
contribution of a psychosocial approach.
289
7. Chapter seven: Developing a
psychosocial perspective to writer identity
7.1 Introduction
In this final data chapter I draw upon the theorisation of writer identity
presented in chapter 3 to explore the ways in which the identities of Patricia,
Bernie, Pamela and David are played out through their writing. This chapter,
therefore, is about the students as individuals and the ways in which their own
identities and life experiences had an impact upon they ways in which they
engaged with writing on the foundation and practice learning course. Each
individual life story and identity is presented as having a relevance to the
students’ participation in their individual writing practices. Although the
interviews are the primary source of data, where relevant additional sources
are referred to such as the student texts and tutor comments.
Through the four case studies, I explore the usefulness of some concepts
derived from psychological and psychoanalytic perspectives to established
work on writer identity. The starting point for this exploration is a discussion of
multiple identities and salience that provides an insight into the ways in which
aspects of an individual’s identity jostle for position, becoming influential on
actions in particular circumstances. Reflective writing, produced for the
practice learning course, generated particularly rich evidence for the
importance of addressing emotion or affect, including the influence of defence
mechanisms such as projection and subconscious or irrational behaviour, in
290
the context of student writing. The significance of the theory of projection is
that the process enables the self to protect itself emotionally. This particular
defence mechanism (a concept introduced in 3.8.4) diverts attention away
from explanations located within the individual that are particularly painful. I
will explore all of these issues in the context of the case studies with the
intention of illustrating the contribution that a psychological and
psychoanalytic perspective can make to our understanding of writer identity.
7.2 Patricia
7.2.1 Developing identities
In the following data, there is evidence of Patricia portraying herself as
someone from a happy, settled family background. She describes her
experiences of education as positive. She retains a confidence in her writing
skills, both in terms of ‘grammar’ and her ability to write creatively. She also
presents herself as a mature student who is a working mother who needs to
juggle competing demands, an experience which has affected her confidence
in her ability to study.
Patricia is in her mid 30s and was born and grew up in rural north Shropshire.
Her parents both grew up on the borders of Shropshire and Cheshire and
Patricia has retained her regional accent despite having lived in the West
Midlands since the age of 18. Patricia portrays herself as having grown up in
a very settled community. In commenting on encountering different cultures
for the first time when she went away to university, Patricia describes her own
family as being working class, living in a council house, as did most of their
291
friends. Patricia’s father worked as a brick layer whilst her mother looked after
the house and family. As a child she developed a love of writing and expected
high achievement of herself. The only educational incident in her account
which was not successful was when she failed to match the high examination
grade she achieved in English Literature with that in English Language, an
experience which bemused and disappointed her:
Patricia: When I did my O levels I got an A in English Literature and I failed English Language. Now I couldn’t understand how I could have done that I re-took and got a B but the first time around I got an A in my literature and a fail in my language. My English teacher couldn’t understand how you could have one skill and not the other.
Lucy: And nobody told you what the problem might be? Patricia: No, not that time, and although it shocked me it wasn’t something
that I saw as a great disaster. I re-sat the exam in the November and got a B.
P11:Patricia interview: 15th March 2001
Patricia entered higher education as a young person who was exceeding her
parents’ academic expectations of her, as she was the only sibling as well as
one of the few children from her class at school to move on to higher
education. She left home directly from school confident in her writing skills,
which had developed not only in school but also through her love of writing
fictional stories:
Patricia: English was always my forte. I loved to write, I wrote children’s stories but right from being a small child I have always written long, exciting, animated letters.
P12: Patricia interview: 15th March 2001
Her faith in her ability to write was not shaken at university where she again
had a very positive experience:
292
Lucy: So it was a big culture shock coming to [city name] Patricia: It was yeah Lucy: What about the studies? Was it different from school in terms of…? Patricia: And I found the first year easier than the last, you know the second
year of A levels Lucy: There were no great differences in terms of what you were expected
to do?
Patricia: No, no not really and I did reasonably well.
P13: Patricia interview: 15th March
Based on her prior experiences of study, Patricia expected to be successful in
her social work studies. She identified herself as having particular skills in
using correct grammar, and talks of her irritation with grammatical errors in
texts from the university:
Lucy: And have you ever had any negative feedback on your writing? Patricia: No, never. Lucy: So you must be doing it right? Patricia: Yes, and I feel that I am. And I am very critical about, about
grammar. I am I’m terrible about, especially if someone, even some of [the university] stuff and that, that shocks me I think when something comes out that is supposed to be from an educational institution and I do feel cross because I am so picky about my own writing. Somebody ought to have picked it up.
P14: Patricia interview: 15th March 2001
Patricia’s self-identification as someone with literacy skills is further evidenced
by her decision to act as volunteer helping adults to develop basic literacy
skills. After completing her first degree in Social Administration, Patricia spent
15 years in employment working as an unqualified social worker prior to
returning to higher education to study for her Diploma in Social Work.
Patricia describes herself as a mother and wife with family responsibilities;
she is also a social worker with an identity both as a practitioner and as a
trainee. Thus Patricia presents several identities through her interviews which
293
could be described as social roles: competent writer, working mother,
experienced (unqualified) social worker, trainee social worker and student.
Patricia’s identity was relevant to her writing practices in several ways. As
suggested in chapter 3, my approach to identity involves more than a
collection of current social roles. Drawing on Henriques et al., (1998) concept
of the self, ‘historical’ aspects of Patricia’s identity also remain with her and
are influential on her current interactions. By ‘historical’ I am referring to the
central concept in psychoanalysis that interpersonal interactions and
experiences, particularly those of the infant, have a major influence on identity
development. The consequence of this perspective is that current interactions
can be influenced by the past as well as by current social and interpersonal
contexts. Henriques et al. convey this concept within psychoanalysis as
follows:
It [psychoanalysis] provides an account for the continuity of the subject, of the past implicated in the present (Henriques et al., 1998, p. 205)
This concept is important in my thesis as I suggest that this historical aspect
of identity can only be located in the self rather than in social identities (see
discussion above in section 3.8.2) as the self provides the continuity through
changing social contexts. Patricia’s writing practices, therefore, are also
influenced by her emotional world, by irrational as well as rational thoughts
and behaviour. Her emotional world, I suggest, is influenced by her social
roles, and the inherent power dynamics arising from her subject positioning. It
is also influenced, however, by desires and defences that are less visible and
more difficult to explain.
294
7.2.2 Emotional worlds
To illustrate the significance and complexity of Patricia’s emotional world I will
explore her account of her feelings about returning to higher education.
Patricia talks about the anxiety she is experiencing in managing her studies
on both courses after almost 15 years out of higher education. The competing
pressures of her job and family generate new pressures:
Patricia: This, [practice learning course writing] I am finding it difficult to get my head around. I don’t find it academically difficult, they are concepts and issues that I understand because I work with every day, you know, it’s been here a long time now. I honestly don’t know whether it was just that I lacked confidence but, if I hadn’t sat down and been sort of coached and egged by colleagues, if it wasn’t for the issues being familiar, I think I would have really struggled.
Lucy: What is it that you are finding difficult? If you think about the essay, you’ve had at least one essay back on both courses and has the feedback been good?
Patricia: Yes it’s been very good. Lucy: So you’re not, it’s not about the results? It’s about your anxiety? Patricia: About being able to cope. Lucy: So what is it that’s causing, is it the actual writing or is it the
questions or collecting the material what is it that’s stopping you? Patricia: Once I find time to do it. Lucy: Right... Patricia: …Is one issue. Lucy: Hmmm. Patricia: I’ve got two children. I just feel that there is some barrier that is that
I’m finding it hard. P15: Patricia interview: 15th March 2001
From this extract Patricia demonstrates her struggle to put her finger on why
she is finding returning to study difficult and finds it hard to settle to her writing
despite receiving endorsement through clear pass grades. In her reflections
she acknowledges that confidence and finding study time in the midst of
295
competing demands are factors. She also identifies several reasons why
returning to study should not be a challenge including the concepts being
familiar, her belief in her literacy skills (which she prides herself on) and the
concepts not being ‘academically difficult’. These contradictory factors
suggest that Patricia’s apparent confidence in her writing is not as
straightforward as it may appear.
Despite Patricia’s apparent confidence as a writer and an experienced
practitioner, she is finding the writing on the DipSW ‘hard’. She refers to her
roles as a mother as being a barrier. She may only be referring to the time
pressures being a mother places on her studies, but her comment ‘Is one
issue’ implies that time is not the only factor and that Patricia is struggling to
verbalise some further barrier. Her academic writing, particularly on the
practice learning course, is confronting her with the requirement to draw
together three aspects of her identity, the personal, the professional and the
scholar which may not previously have been so closely interwoven.
This example illustrates that, for Patricia, there may be a need to
compartmentalise her emotional responses within discrete sections of
experiential writing. In this way she can close down or look away from her
emotions when she focuses on aspects of her text that she interprets as not
requiring experiential writing. This practice could be compared with the
psychoanalytic process of ‘splitting’ (discussed in 3.8.4) through which an
individual separates out bad or painful aspects of an experience from good or
emotionally unproblematic aspects. By separating the emotionally charged
experiences, where it is possible to do so, she is able to concentrate more
296
effectively on the less emotionally demanding theoretical aspects of her
writing.
7.2.3 Identities and interpersonal interactions: Patricia and her
tutors
In Patricia’s discussion of her experiences of writing on the practice and
foundation courses, she foregrounds the differences in her relationship with
each tutor. She suggests that the differences in her respective relationships
with her tutors arose for a number of reasons. Through discussing her
feelings about her tutors, Patricia reveals conscious preferences about the
ways in which she would like her tutors to interact with her, but also perhaps
less conscious aspects of her own identity and feelings about writing which
may also have arisen from the specific nature of the writing task on each
course.
The practice learning course, as outlined in chapters 5 and 6, required
students to engage in experiential as well as theoretical writing. In the context
of seeking support to understand the requirements of the practice learning
course, Patricia suggests that her difficulty with her tutor arose not so much
from his physical unavailability in tutorials or on the phone but more to do with
the lack of trust developed and the quality of the relationship:
Patricia: And yes you can ring him [practice learning tutor] up but to be able to do that you’ve got to feel that you’ve some sort of, how can I put it, sort of relationship based upon trust to be able to say that ‘shit this is this’ and you know ‘der de der’…
P16: Patricia interview 1: 15th March 2001
297
Patricia implies here that she does not feel that she has such a ‘relationship
based upon trust’ with her practice learning tutor. The following extract
illustrates one cause for her difficulty in trusting him:
Patricia: I did ring him [practice learning tutor] once before this essay and got quite a clipped response. That’s all I needed to put me right off [Laughs]. You know, and I wouldn’t ever go down that road again. I mean I have got a lot of pride and I think that I should be able to do this [complete her assignments] without asking and for me to actually ring up and say ‘can you just, I don’t quite know what to do with this’ and well he wouldn’t know that [laugh] it’s just me being over-sensitive but I thought ‘Oh! [slaps her hand] Right OK. So I wouldn’t, unless I was absolutely desperate, ask for help. I’m sure it’s just me, but it is the way I’m made.
P17: Patricia interview 2
This extract provides some insight into both the degree of Patricia’s confusion
about how to write on the practice learning course (discussed in 6.3.1) but
also about her relationship with her tutor. Patricia suggests that it was the
absence of a welcoming response (together with her own ‘over sensitivity’)
that deterred her from entering into a dialogue with her practice learning tutor
in order to deepen her understanding of his comments and grading of her
writing. The extract above also suggests that Patricia, as a person who prides
herself on working independently and is sensitive to criticism or rejection,
found it particularly difficult to trust her practice learning tutor. Moreover, he
did not appear to recognise her need for individual time and encouragement,
resulting in her feeling deterred from trying to seek help from him again:
Patricia: It’s very difficult to have sort of special time for yourself with this course and I am very conscious that [practice learning tutor] is very busy,
P18: Patricia interview: 15th March 2001
Extract P17 and P18 provide some insights into the ways in which Patricia’s
own identity has a bearing upon both her relationship with her tutor and the
298
way in which she writes and responds to feedback. Patricia implies, from her
use of a whisper and her comment: I don’t know I should be saying this
(Patricia interview: 15th March 2001) that she feels she is being disloyal and
critical of practice learning tutor’s competence. Her discomfort in criticising
him reminds us of the imbalance of power between Patricia (as student) and
her tutor.
It becomes easier to understand Patricia’s difficulty in trusting her practice
learning course tutor in the light of her reluctance to ask for help (I wouldn’t,
unless I was absolutely desperate, ask for help) and sensitivity to criticism
(I…got quite a clipped response. That’s all I needed to put me right off) both of
which illustrate her vulnerabilities and need for support despite her apparent
confidence in her writing skills. Although Patricia does not explicitly say so, it
could be suggested that the personal nature of experiential writing meant that
a trusting relationship between student and tutor was particularly important.
Thus Patricia acknowledges that she was both particularly reluctant to ask for
help and easily deterred if she did not receive a warm and nurturing response.
She not only values but needs the ‘personal bit’ in order to enable her to feel a
sense of trust and enter into a dialogue with her tutor about her writing.
Patricia’s difficulty in maintaining a dialogue with her practice learning tutor
was not consistent with her experience of her foundation course tutor. Her
relationship with the foundation course tutor was easier and more positive
despite all her contact with him being through written correspondence or
telephone conversations:
299
Lucy: Have you ever felt able to contact [foundation course tutor], because you haven’t met him at all have you?
Patricia: Oh I have yes! Lucy: You have? So it isn’t necessarily about building up a relationship in
tutorials is it? Patricia: No possibly not, ‘cos he’s, I mean when I first spoke to him I just
said that I didn’t think, you know, it was going to be very good having a tutor who was the other side of [city name] [laugh], and we would never meet, and he said ‘Patricia don’t fret’, he said, you know, ‘we will be fine and you can ring me anytime’ and ‘we can talk through your assignments’. And I have, and what we sort of developed was he writes on it and then I have a go with the areas that he has highlighted, if you like, and then I can put a little note on it, ‘Dear [tutor]’, you know, ‘thank you for your comments blah blah blah I have tried hard to address increasing personal experience in the essay and I have made it more punchy and more concise I hope this better’ and then back it comes, ‘oh yes’ you know, ‘well done de der de der, and perhaps I need a bit of that’. I need a bit of ‘come along come along’ you know? And maybe that is something that I recognise in me that I, in the past, I didn’t realise, but he clocked it straight away even though we have never met. But I imagine that he, he sounds like a chap in his I’d say, 50’s? It’s not as though we have any connection but when we first started with the foundation course he sent me a note saying drop me a line or email you know, I don’t know you from Adam, who are you? And I did and I wrote him a piece saying you know I am 39, I’ve got 2 kids, you know, I do this I do that der de der and he replied and said, oh you know, ‘ you are a busy lady, how are you going to do this blah blah?’ So things were set from the start off, but with the practice learning course there is no personal bit.
P19: Patricia interview: 15th March 2001
Patricia’s foundation course tutor appears to have recognised her need for not
only encouragement but also for him to acknowledge her identity as a mother
and mature learner who is juggling competing pressures. This, perhaps
together with Patricia’s response to his identity as ‘a like a chap in his I’d say,
50’s?’ unlocked her ability to trust him, something which did not take place
with her practice learning tutor. The fact that Patricia needed some
encouragement and confidence building is something that she acknowledges
that her foundation course tutor ‘clocked’ quickly. It is possible that one of the
300
factors that facilitated their interaction was his acknowledgement of Patricia’s
anxiety and her foundation course tutor’s interest in her as an individual and
empathy (you are a busy lady). Patricia’s foundation course tutor, therefore,
acknowledged central parts of her identity; Patricia as a busy, mature woman
and mother. This aspect of her identity, as discussed above, may have felt
disharmonious with her role as social worker and student. It was important for
her, therefore to have these aspects of her identity validated as important and
potentially conflictual issues, the recognition of which had an impact on her
studies and facilitated her writing.
Identity markers for Patricia’s foundation course tutor (he sounds like a chap
in his I’d say, 50’s) were as important as his interest in her identity, (you
sound like a busy lady). Although Patricia broadly believed that she should be
able to succeed (as writing is her ‘forte’), this was within the context of her
confidence being shaken by returning to study and finding her studies more
difficult than she expected. As a result, regardless of challenges of writing
which may arise from issues such as clarity of academic expectations, the
relationship between the identity of Patricia and her tutors became central to
her experience of writing. Patricia’s identification of her lack of trust in her
practice learning tutor together with the failure of the practice learning course
developers to offer adequate preparation, suggest that she is projecting the
difficulties she experiences with her writing onto her tutor and the course
developers. Similarly she projects her positive experience on the foundation
course onto her tutor and his ability to help and empathise with her. Whilst
Patricia’s experiences may or may not match the perception of others (one
tutor being empathic, one not, one course being clear and easy to write and
301
one not) what is significant here is the way in which Patricia responds to and
rationalises (or makes sense of) these experiences, possibly through
reference to particular discourses. One such discourse available to her would
be that of ‘good’ communication skills within social work, in which the ‘helper’
should be available, nurturing, attentive, empathic and supportive with clear
honest communication skills. In the context of this discourse, it could be
suggested that her practice learning course tutor fell short of the ideal.
Although there may be some parallels between the role of tutor and social
worker, the reality was that Patricia’s practice learning tutor was in an
educational role and very different discourses may have been guiding his
perception of his role.
Patricia does not suggest that her ability to write on each course is the result
of the quality of her relationship with her tutors or even attributable to their
tutoring. Her difficult feelings about her practice learning tutor clearly did,
however, have an impact on how she responded to feedback on her writing
and to seeking support. There is an interesting difference, for example, in
where Patricia appears to look for guidance on each course:
Patricia: What we should have had, Lucy, to start with was some sort of workshop giving us an idea of the style [for the practice learning course], it’s the style that is so different because D [the practice learning course tutor] wants ‘I want, I think, I feel, I felt’ whereas the, the foundation course is looking at writing in the third person, but D - well, you write that to your auntie Jane you don’t write it for a course, I’ve never written it for a course.
P20: Patricia Interview: 14th June 2001
In this extract Patricia demonstrates that she looked towards the course
guidance on the foundation course (the foundation course is looking at writing
in the third person) but then personalises the source of advice on the practice
302
learning course to her tutor ([practice learning tutor] wants I want I think I feel I
felt). This illustrates her awareness that the guidance on writing comes from
both individual tutors and also course guidelines such as the assignment
book. Her emphasis on each individual course, however, could suggest that
she experiences the demands of the practice learning course as more driven
by the tutor, and therefore (given her lack of trust in the tutor) possibly more
arbitrary than the foundation course. Patricia also expresses frustration about
the feedback she receives on her practice learning course (And I’m thinking,
well I don’t know that you want to know that) which she experiences as
indicating that her tutor’s expectations of her change from one assignment to
the next, as discussed above in 5.6.2.
The reasons for Patricia’s sensitivity could have many sources, including her
anxiety about academic failure (resonating with her failure in her English
Language examination as a child) and implied tutor criticism of the deeply
personal and emotive discussion which she shared in her practice learning
course text. Patricia’s interactions with her tutors illustrate the salience for her
of what could apparently be less salient roles. Her personal world became
particularly salient for her when engaging in and receiving feedback on her
academic writing. Despite the salience of Patricia’s identity as a good writer
as a young adult (English was always my forte) and familiarity with the course
content derived from her professional life (they are concepts and issues that I
understand), something shook her confidence as a mature student writer. It is
possible that both the need for trust, and the difficulty of establishing it, could
have been amplified by the emotive nature of the task on the practice learning
303
course in particular, but Patricia focuses more on the nature of the
relationships with her tutors than on the demands of the respective courses.
Patricia shares some aspects of her emotional world which underlie these
jostling identities: as a person who is reluctant to ask for help and feels she
should be able to cope alone and a person who responds to empathy and a
recognition of her as a busy mother as well as a professional and student.
These multiple identities overshadow and influence the way in which she
creates text (her writing practices) and also the ways in which she responds to
feedback on her writing.
7.3 Bernie
Bernie’s discussion of her experiences suggest that her identity as a black
woman of Jamaican origin is associated with a number of discourses closely
associated with personal historical experiences which carry significant
emotional meaning for her. Bernie provided a detailed account of her prior
educational experiences and her identity as a British-born woman with
Jamaican parents. Like Patricia, Bernie described herself as a child as
someone who was academically able, but unlike Patricia she did not feel that
this was recognised by her school. She also said that she was hindered in her
learning by the attitudes of her teachers, her cultural heritage and a lack of
proactive support from her parents. Despite providing an account of repeated
discrimination as well as linguistic and cultural disadvantage, Bernie showed
remarkable resilience in maintaining her identity as a scholar. Her emotional
world, as with Patricia, influenced her academic writing
304
7.3.1 Persistently salient identities
Although Bernie was born in England, she lived in Jamaica for just under two
years prior to returning to the UK and joining a British primary school at the
age of seven. As a young child she experienced both Jamaican and British
culture and language, both through an extended visit to Jamaica and through
her parents, whom she described as speaking Jamaican English, or Patwa, at
home. In reflecting on her childhood educational experiences, Bernie
identified some particular memories which she felt had an impact on her
education. Some of these memories stemmed from the attitudes and actions
of influential adults in her life and others from the cultural and linguistic
context of her family. The first issue related to Bernie’s memory of her own
academic aspirations and the failure of both her parents and teachers to
support and encourage her:
Bernie: I think I missed out because my parents believed that when you sent a child to school that the teachers would be fair, and they were not.
Lucy: Yeah. Bernie: And I picked, I did pick that up as a child, I knew I was a very good
athlete and I would not do it because it was not what I wanted to, I wanted to be academically able and I wanted it from a young age.
Lucy: Right Bernie: And I believe that I would have been much, much better than I am
now if that was picked up by my parents and just pushed in that area, that’s what I wanted to do.
Lucy: So how do you feel that the teachers were unfair? Bernie: Oh they were unfair in that they did not push you in the areas that
you wanted to, wanted to be they did not pick that up, they picked up that all black people were good at running, so therefore get out there on the field - I mean I missed out on classes because I was sent to, whenever there was a field race or sports day I could just go because … um I could do, although I don’t do it, they want me to go because they think just in case I change my mind - so I just sit there not doing anything.
Lucy: So teachers having stereotypes about what people were good
305
at?...... Bernie: No I picked that up. I remember saying, I’m not doing, why should I
do it? So I would not do it and I was not, I wasn’t a naughty child, I was, if you look through all of my records always went to school and nobody ever had to take me home. I wanted to be academic, Yeah?
Lucy: But you didn’t feel that they gave you the opportunity or pushed you or had high expectations for you?
Bernie: No, no - and that would have affected you as a child. B17: Bernie interview: 20th March 2001
Whilst there is no way of determining the facts of the discrimination described
by Bernie nor the extent of her parents’ lack of support, particularly compared
with other children, the important issue here is that Bernie experienced the
actions and attitudes of her teachers and parents as being negative and
unsupportive. The impact of this experience was sufficiently strong as to
remain in her mind as an adult reflecting on her educational history and her
current experience of academic writing. Despite the negative memories,
Bernie was also aware that her parents had expectations of all their children
going to university and that education was highly valued in the home, with
books and encyclopaedias being available:
Bernie: And my parents had high hopes for us, they had expectations of us to go to university, I don’t know how when they never pushed me.
[Laughter] Bernie: They did anyway because um education was important to them. Lucy: Sure Bernie: And we all picked that up and it wasn’t until later that I myself picked
it up but nevertheless it was an important thing and um there was always like encyclopaedias around, books around to help and I remember that at one point my parents did have an English tutor for me.
B18: Bernie interview: 20th March 2001
306
Here Bernie identifies the contradiction in her parents’ ambitions for her and
attempts to support her and her childhood experience of them as parents who
did not push her or respond to any failings of her school.
Bernie identified that part of the disadvantage she experienced resulted from
the linguistic and cultural context in which she lived with her family. This may
have contributed to her perception of her parents as being unsupportive. As
an adult and parent reflecting on her childhood, Bernie recognises that the
British education system assumed that children would have culturally based
knowledge such as nursery rhymes, fairy tales and proverbs. As a child raised
in a family where Jamaican English was spoken alongside British English, and
with parents who did not move to the UK until they were adults, Bernie
believed that she did not have sufficient familiarity with such culturally based
knowledge to enable her to perform well in school:
Bernie: And so I thought that I missed out I thought looking back, just reflecting now, I missed out on a lot of culture, I was not in the culture as such because, if you understand phrases and nursery rhymes and things, you missed out on all that, so understanding when they give you different quizzes and stuff and tests to do you don’t understand it because of the cultural difference you wouldn’t understand the language and wouldn’t know what they were talking about and what the phrases meant you wouldn’t understand it …
B19: Bernie interview: 20th March 2001
And later in the interview:
Bernie: Because I recognised that [the importance of being familiar with English nursery rhymes] when my son, having my own child, that I, you needed to know nursery rhymes, ‘cos you miss out if you don’t know nursery rhymes and you don’t know sayings ‘cos I still don’t understand a lot of the English sayings
Lucy: Yeah, Bernie: ‘Cos I say it the wrong way around I don’t understand it, I will, you
know, I will… like a bee in a bonnet or I’d say your bonnet in a bee, I
307
just did not understand why they were saying it and what it meant. Lucy: Hmmm Bernie: … and that, or most of that, was in the 11 plus. Lucy: Right Bernie: Although there were other things I did not understand, so one way to
help my child was getting to know, I learnt [with emphasis] all the nursery rhymes there was to learn, I learnt so that my son would know.
Lucy: Hmmm Bernie: And he reads quite a wide range of books because I know that’s
important but I think I missed out because my parents believed that when you sent a child to school that the teachers would be fair and they were not.
B20: Bernie interview: 20th March 2001
Bernie suggests, therefore, that despite her parents’ ambitions, they lacked
(or believed they lacked) the resources to help their children educationally and
believed that the school would provide all the necessary support. Any actual
linguistic impact on Bernie’s ability to succeed educationally is difficult to
determine, although she does mention the following illustration:
Bernie: I didn’t think that I had problems with my writing ‘til adulthood. When I was at school I can remember one specific thing happening. That I put down... I was talking about a black girl who was fair in my story and I put down that this person was ‘light skinned’ and the teacher put down ‘fair’ and that made me stop and think… no, in fact there is another thing as well, my mum the way words that my mum used her English were more the American side because of the Jamaican using different phrases and stuff that would be more American than English.
Lucy: Right Bernie: I started to think that because mum uses different words that was
English and they weren’t in the dictionary. And I thought I’m going to look in the dictionary for this word and the words that she was using were your words that probably more upper class would use.
Lucy: Uhu Bernie: So I recognised that, yes, the words that my mother used were
alright, it’s just that the people I was mixing with at school the people that were teaching me, did not know these words and they were not wrong and they were alright to use. Like ‘stop Kimboing’ my mum would say, but it is in the dictionary and I did not know, until I thought
308
let me look up half of these words that she uses, um, so it in a sense affected me [with emphasis] without realising it until I was older, and I thought that my big problem was maths, and it wasn’t maths and I went back into college and I studied again and maths was not my problem, it was English.
B21: Bernie interview: 20th March 2001
Alongside Bernie’s discussion of the influence of her family and cultural
background, she also focuses on the attitudes and actions of her teachers as
a child. As with her initially negative comments about her parental support
academically, Bernie’s recollections are also mixed in relation to her teachers.
Although she speaks of being mis-placed in remedial classes, for example,
she also talks of this being quickly rectified and of particular teachers who
recognised her abilities and encouraged her:
Bernie: And I think the teacher, the teacher can have an effect on you, and I think that one of my, one of the reasons that I quickly moved out of the bottom class was that a teacher, recognised my capabilities and even so she recognised that there was other qualities in me. I mean the one time I was ill, and she came to the house and, and I was like really shocked and she said ‘you out of all the people I would know that there was really something wrong. But she really thought, you know she had hopes for me that ...she saw that potential, but…
Lucy: She was unusual? Bernie: Yeah. So it’s, I think, my maths teachers had a lot to do with it and
when I went back into doing maths I, I’m a very good person at reflecting, I reflect and move on, and I met another maths teacher, that was a man, they are usually male [laugh] they um do their work, if you can’t do it it’s our problem and I happened to meet another one and this time I thought, well OK, I’ll take note and I’ll remember what I’m supposed to learn and I’ll go out and I’ll find out and that’s exactly what I did. And I know that it’s not me it’s you, because you can’t get me to know. And I went out and I found out, what ever you can do I can do, and that’s my attitude now.
B22: Bernie interview: 20th March 2001
Apart from gender there is no indication on the part of her teachers of identity
markers, such as heritage, but there is a suggestion that Bernie did not
experience all of her teachers demonstrating discriminatory or racist attitudes
309
or behaviour towards her. Bernie’s focus on racist experiences and her
acknowledgement of gender is particularly interesting given her experiences
of writing on the social work programme, as discussed in 6.4.2.
In the context of our discussions about her writing, Bernie focuses on several
identities which appear to be particularly salient for her: Bernie as a Black
Jamaican, Bernie as a reflective, religious woman and Bernie as a person
who values education. Each of these identities carry with them an association
with particular discourses, but they also carry particular emotional significance
for Bernie. Taking the example of religion, Bernie suggests that her ‘religion
and faith’ is the source of her ability to reflect and has been something she
has done for a long time. For her, reflection is associated with a moral
imperative:
Bernie: I always know that for a person you need to reflect on where you are coming from and what you are doing all the time and whether it is right or wrong, and I need to do that as part of religion and faith, I have to do that all the time and I am always reading self-help books. So when I picked up this course I said yes [with emphasis]! I really wanted… but it never really helped me.
B23: Bernie Interview: 18th June 2001
When she encounters reflection as part of experiential writing on the practice
learning course, therefore, she associates it not only with something familiar
that she can do, but with a central aspect of her identity which carries spiritual
value. The close association between education and Bernie’s identity as a
black woman, based on her difficult childhood experiences, have
unsurprisingly stayed with her and appear to be influential on the way in which
she experiences her relationship with her tutors. Despite there being very little
evidence of criticism of her writing from her practice learning tutor, she
310
expresses concern that he is making unjust racialised judgements on her
writing. This example illustrates the importance of discourse and emotion
because it offers Bernie an interpretation of her tutor’s behaviour. She depicts
her tutor’s behaviour as matching her prior experience of education which she
associates with a particular discourse of racist educational practice. Bernie
describes her experiences of racism at school as a child (see extract B17)
and links this to her belief that white teachers (by implication in higher
education) focus disproportionately on black Caribbean students’ writing when
looking for and commenting on surface language errors (see extract B23
above in this section). This identity and subject positioning was subtly
reinforced by a gender position only hinted at by Bernie when she suggests
that, whilst it would be very difficult for a white man to understand black
people’s experiences, a black woman’s ability to understand would be
‘different’. In suggesting someone who would be able to understand her
experiences in a different way, she aligns not only the ethnicity but also the
gender with her own. This suggests that Bernie’s identity as a woman as well
as a black person (in contrast to her white male tutor) was influencing their
relationship.
7.3.2 Repeating discourses
The above examples illustrate that Bernie’s identity as a black English-born
Jamaican was central to her very difficult prior educational experiences.
These experiences involve emotive memories, but also her familiarity with
particular discourses such as those relating to racism and education. These
discourses and emotions remain with her as an adult and shadows of them
can be seen in her discussion of her relationship with her practice learning
311
tutor. Bernie identifies difficult experiences with her tutor and recounts
experiences which are racialised in her interpretations of them.
Bernie: And I did re-jiggle everything [the practice learning course assignment] and make sure I put everything together where it’s supposed to be and stuff like that
Lucy: Hmmm Bernie: And then put it down and then go back to it so I know [emphasis]
that I have no problem with that, but he talked [emphasis] as if I had a problem with it and I was angry.
Lucy: Hmmm Bernie: And I felt that it was coming from something else because there was
a lot of other Black people said the same thing too.
B24: Bernie interview: 20th March 2001
The methodology used in this research does not provide evidence to suggest
that Bernie’s competence resulting from her culturally based knowledge or
linguistic skills themselves have influenced her academic writing. Equally
there is no data to clearly support or contradict Bernie’s impression that her
practice learning tutor’s comments or grading were racially influenced. Only
two corrections of surface features are made on Bernie’s text and the
summary comment, although it refers to ‘grammar / spelling’ does not imply
that these are either persistent or of significant concern:
Keep an eye on grammar / spelling – only occasionally does this become an issue, and a quick double check will help smooth the spelling and grammar bits I corrected.
Bernie foundation course assignment 4 tutor comment
The data does indicate, however, that one consequence of her prior
experiences has been that Bernie’s perceptions of her tutor’s attitudes are a
significant influence on her writing practice. It was important for her that there
312
was a level of mutual understanding, of shared experience at some level to
enable her tutor to understand her writing:
Bernie: Sometimes when you understand where a person is coming from you can understand their writing
B25: Bernie interview: 20th March 2001
There are several examples in Bernie’s talk about her writing which illustrate
the importance of this connection. This first example illustrates Bernie’s
response to feedback and the importance to her of receiving feedback on her
writing practice that she trusted. Here Bernie talks about her initial reluctance
to read and respond to feedback on her writing which resulted from her
sensitivity to anticipated criticism:
Bernie: I, you see I have come a long way, because at University I would never read the teacher’s comments because they would put me down and I didn’t like it. Not put me down, I mean you think any comment is going to put you down. My son is a bit like that; I keep trying to get him out of it. You need to read the comments and move on.
Lucy: Hmmm Bernie: And it was not until I started the foundation course I took everything
to the book I went through all the classes, everything to the book, all the ideas that they gave you I took onboard and when someone advises you to read the comments because it will help [with emphasis] you, I did it to the letter, I did it [with emphasis].
Lucy: Hmm Bernie: And when that lady gave advice I took it. Lucy: Hmmm
Bernie: She gave good advice and I moved on
B26: Bernie interview: 20th March 2001
Bernie’s hard-won confidence in the advice of this foundation course tutor
made it all the more difficult for her to accept criticism or follow advice from
subsequent tutors. This may in part explain her reluctance to follow guidance
on writing for the practice learning course which contradicted the advice of her
313
trusted tutor. Bernie and Patricia also both expressed the unmet need (on the
practice learning course) to feel trust and a personal connection with their
tutors. The following extract provides a further example of Bernie’s need to
feel a connection with her tutor:
Bernie: I find as well that coming from studying for so long that you it’s not about the work it’s is about knowing who is marking it, marking your work
Lucy: Hmmm Bernie: And I could not connect with this teacher at all so I didn’t want to, it
was a waste of time trying because I was never going to get there. I felt a sense that I was never going to get there, I was wasting my time so I gave up trying.
B27: Bernie interview: 20th March 2001
Here Bernie is clear that there was something about her tutor on the practice
learning course that led her to the conclusion that she was ‘wasting her time’.
She indicates that she feels uneasy about his responses to her writing as a
Black student:
Bernie: And I felt that it was coming from something else because there was a lot of other Black people said the same thing too.
B28: Bernie interview: 18th June 2001
Bernie makes more than one reference to her practice learning tutor’s
response to her as a Black woman and, although not stated explicitly, she
implies that this is unhelpful. She certainly suggests that her practice learning
tutor would not have the same ability to understand Bernie’s writing
discrimination as a Black person might have:
Bernie: I always wanted to write about my experience and where I come from and that essay was my first opportunity to do so and then this, this is what I get [laughter] But then I suppose it is an individual thing, not everybody is going to like what you have written and if you find one person to get it off the ground then loads of other people will like it.
314
Lucy: Do you think that [practice learning tutor] didn’t like what you had written?
Bernie: I think he was taken aback when he read it. I felt it made him think. Because anybody reading that would stop and see another perspective on how Black people think and that we don’t all think that you’re all prejudiced. But we do think that you are sometimes.
B29: Bernie interview: 18th June 2001
This extract again illustrates Bernie’s quiet confidence in her writing ability,
externalising any difficulties by locating them in her readers. This is illustrated
by her acceptance that ‘not everybody is going to like what you have written’
and assertion that the practice learning tutor’s reading of her work was
racialised and potentially prejudiced.
Drawing on Henriques et al. (1998), the association of discourses based on
inequality and discrimination creates a context for Bernie to interpret or
understand her experiences of participating in academic writing. But closely
associated with these ways of understanding are ways of feeling. Bernie
expressed anger, frustration and a sense of injustice in relation to her writing,
despite that fact that it was praised and received good marks. She projected
any criticism of her writing (real or assumed) back on to her tutor and justified
her tutor’s actions in the context of discriminatory discourses. As with
Patricia’s defence mechanism of projection, Bernie’s projection of ‘getting it
wrong’ on to her tutor does not imply that in reality she was the one making
mistakes, only that she was protecting herself emotionally from an anticipated
failure or criticism that would be emotionally painful for her. Thus her
projection protects her from criticism and is justified by discourses of
discrimination and reinforced by her own historical experiences. Bernie’s
projection illustrates the way in which the relationship between identity and
315
current experience involve both conscious and unconscious, rational and
irrational thought and behaviour. At times Bernie makes very clear and
consciously intentional links to discourses of discrimination, but she also
appears to enact this discourse less rationally, such as claiming that her tutor
criticised her use of English because he mixed her up with another black
female student. In fact Bernie acknowledges that this other student also has
good written language skills, so her argument for her tutor’s prejudicial
assumptions appears irrational but may betray her unconscious pre-
occupation with particular discourses.
7.4 Pamela
Pamela was the youngest member of the tutor group and had also had the
shortest gap in her education, having followed a Higher National Diploma in
Childcare between leaving school and beginning her Diploma in Social Work.
In contrast to Bernie and Patricia, who talked freely about both their childhood
and experiences of writing on the Diploma in Social Work, Pamela spoke less.
Her reluctance to speak about herself provided an important context for her
writing in itself, and appeared to be linked to the equally important theme of
Pamela’s self-confidence.
7.4.1 In the shadow of low self-confidence
In Pamela’s first interview she acknowledged that she found it very hard to
talk as well as to write about herself:
Pamela: I’m not very good at talking about me. I’m terrible at blowing my own trumpet. I get told at interviews that I’ve got to blow your own trumpet, and I’m not very good at it.
316
Lucy: If you had been talking rather than writing it would still have been difficult?
Pam: Yeah, yes Lucy: Do you think the writing made any difference the fact that you were
writing rather than talking about yourself? Pam: Yeah - I think I found it easier to write about it but it’s still - I can’t see
why anyone is interested in me so that’s how I feel, this is me but is it really interesting?
PM7: Pamela interview: 12th April 2001
One of the issues raised here is that Pamela states that she finds it hard to
understand why anyone might be interested in her and what she has to say
and that this affected the way in which she approached writing, where this
was a requirement, such as on the practice learning course. This suggestion
of a lack of self-confidence was also apparent when Pamela spoke about her
early school experiences, during which, despite a love of reading she felt that
her handwriting was messy and she (along with her parents) did not have
aspirations of higher education. Pamela left school at 16, having achieved
grade D passes at GCSE in English language and literature and makes no
comment that she expected or thought that she deserved or expected a
higher grade.
Pamela did not share a great deal of information about her early educational
experiences in the interviews. What does appear to be clear in her account,
however, is that Pamela attributes her performance to her abilities alone,
despite evidence presented elsewhere that there were good external reasons
for all the students struggling with the expectations of their writing on the
practice learning course (see chapter 5 and 6). In psychoanalytic terms,
Pamela could be described as ‘introjecting’ any difficulties associated with her
writing, or in other words absorbing external explanations for her difficulties
317
(or indeed achievements) rather than looking for explanations beyond herself.
This is something she has in common with David (see below) but not with
Bernie or Patricia, who both identify external influences on their ability to
succeed in their writing. Pamela does not mention the influence of her parents
or particular teachers in her journey to developing her literacy. The only
specific teacher mentioned is one who rang her at home to talk to her after
she wrote a reflective piece about her experiences of being bullied about
being over-weight. She suggests that her performance in writing was affected
by her negative feelings about her messy handwriting, although she does not
recount receiving any negative comments about her handwriting from school.
Pamela did not pursue her studies beyond the age of 16 as, having lost about
5 stone when she was 13 or 14 she described herself as being distracted by a
lively social life. She was led back into higher education following her decision
to work in childcare, which required her to undertake a Higher National
Diploma in Childcare. Pamela’s discussion of her writing on the social work
programme mirrors her reflection on her school experiences in that she
primarily attributes any difficulties to herself rather than to the actions of
others. For example, along with all the other students in the group, Pamela
identifies the practice learning course as more difficult than the foundation
course, but she attributes this difference to her own difficulties with the
reflective writing rather than to the failure of either her tutor or the guidance to
explain what was required:
Pamela: With the practice-learning course it’s all I felt, I feel or I think, which is all quite reflective writing which I found it difficult to get my head around, when I first started, I think that that is the main one even though you have to back it up by theory it’s a lot of stuff about
318
yourself which I found extremely difficult to do at first, why I did this and why you are supposed to do that.
PM8: Pamela interview: 2nd July 2001
Pamela’s anxiety about her writing is also demonstrated by her lack of
confidence in using tenses in her assignments. She identifies that greater skill
is needed in the use of tenses when writing on the practice learning course
(discussed in chapter 6) which she found particularly challenging:
Pamela: I feel the style of the writing is completely different as well, in what tense you write. But the thing that I found in the practice learning course especially, I found myself going from past to present quite a lot and I had to, like, really knuckle down and think what are you writing…
Lucy: Why was why were the tenses likely to be any different? Pamela: I think with the practice-learning course because you are talking
about moments in time. Lucy: Right. Pamela: Like if you look at this one (the practice- learning course assignment
4) it was about my first day at work and I think it was just getting my head back around it again because I did I feel I did swap the tenses around quite a lot and again it was only a minor point but I felt really stressed when I re-read it back
Lucy: What did you notice mistakes? Pamela: Hmm, I should have put that word there you know
PM9: Pamela interview: 2nd July 2001
Despite Pamela’s concern that she may make mistakes with her use of
tenses, there is no evidence either from her text or comments by her tutor that
any errors appeared in the final draft, and Pamela was unable during the
interview to find any examples. This suggests that, although Pamela may
have found the writing on the practice learning course challenging, what is
more significant here is the degree of anxiety that she felt and her lack of
confidence in her abilities.
319
Pamela also talks of her lack of confidence in relation to the process of
drafting her writing. She describes a very short timescale during which she
collects and organises her notes, writes directly on to the computer and then
prints off to revise once, all within a three day period:
Lucy: What would happen if you did give yourself more time, because you implied that it would make you more worried?
Pamela: I think it would, I really think it would, I think if I’ve got more time to think about it then I’ve got more time to worry about it, if that makes sense it would be. With the first foundation course assignment, I really, really mulled… about two weeks mulling over it and mulling over it all the time and I thought I can’t do this, I can’t do this. They are expecting too much of me [laughter]. I can’t do this and I sent that off and I thought well, I’ve failed and it was like that, constantly thinking that I’ve not done very well and I’m always thinking things like that, even though deep, deep down I’m quietly confident. I can’t be wholly confident I’m just not that kind of person.
Lucy: So is that typical of you? Would you be like that when you did you other studies?
Pamela: Oh God yes, everything, yeah. Lucy: Is that just to do with studies or is it that anyway? Pamela: Anyway. Lucy: It’s nothing to do with like… Pamela: That’s me. [laughter] That’s me, yeah
PM10: Pamela interview: 2nd July 2001
In the context of speaking about her lack of confidence in writing, Pamela also
suggests that this lack of self-confidence (usually ungrounded judging by her
consistently sound pass grades) is in fact typical of her more generally. This
lack of self-confidence appears to have been a backdrop to Pamela’s writing
and has influenced her own writing practice in important ways, not least the
fact that she looks to herself rather than to the actions of others to explain any
problems that she encounters. One example of this, discussed in the second
interview with Pamela, was her confusion over negative feedback on her use
of ‘structure’ in her writing. Throughout the foundation course Pamela
320
received critical comment on her ‘structure’ (Pamela’s tutor’s word) in her
assignments, which was not replicated in her practice learning course
assignments. This was the only area of her writing that Pamela was receiving
consistent negative comment on and she raised this issue during the
interview:
Lucy: Do you think that you ever got to understand what he was getting at by structure?
Pamela: No, no I tried and like with that one, is that? Lucy: [fourth assignment] this is, yes, and you had put a note on it yourself
saying that you had really worked on the structure and you hoped that I was right
Pamela: Yeah Lucy: and he said on his feedback that it was much better but he had also
commented during the essay on the structure Pamela: Yeah, yeah because I felt that I had waffled, I’m quite terrible at
waffling… but with that one I wouldn’t, I thought I’m just going to write down my points and I’m going to talk about them and I was even under my word count I’ve always been over and I was under my word count because I thought I had stuck rigidly to what the question was asking, and I thought I was doing really well and then I get paragraph structure [laughter] so there was structure somewhere always in my feedback so no I don’t think I ever got my structure right
Lucy: What, what I mean you said that your guess was that structure in that case is keeping to the point
Pamela: Yes I mean an intro, main points and a conclusion
PM11: Pamela interview: 2nd July 2001
From reading Pamela’s texts it appeared to me that she had made a simple
typographical error in all her assignments. The error involved pressing the
return key after each sentence, giving the impression on the page that she
was beginning a new paragraph after each full stop. In fact this was not her
intention and she did leave a double space between her intended paragraphs.
The written comments that Pamela received did not help her to identify this
simple error, even by the end of the course, her foundation course tutor had
321
commented on her ‘structure’, which may have been a criticism of this error.
Pamela’s practice learning tutor had not commented on her structure,
although she made the same typographical error on both courses. Her second
foundation course assignment contained the comment:
Would suggest you continue to give attention to structuring your arguments and paragraphs
Pamela foundation course assignment 2 tutor comment
And her fourth the following:
I also felt that your TMA would be easier to follow if you’re looked at your structure i.e. paragraphs.
Pamela foundation course assignment 4 tutor comment
Pamela reached the end of the foundation course still not understanding
these repeated comments, but despite this, worked hard to rectify what she
understood ‘structure’ to mean and attributed the error to her perceived
tendency to ‘waffle’ (see above). It did not appear to occur to Pamela that the
tutors’ comments were unhelpful, inexplicit or even incorrect, even though
only one of the tutors was picking up on the ‘problem’. Throughout the writing
of eight essays for the foundation course and three for the practice learning
course, in all of which Pamela made the same typographical error, she
continued to examine her own writing practice rather than to ask for
clarification or question the helpfulness of her tutor’s comments (as both
Bernie and Patricia did). Given these circumstances I stepped out of the
research role at this point and pointed out the typographical error to Pamela,
an issue which was discussed in chapter 4.
322
Pamela’s identities are relatively well hidden compared to those of Patricia
and Bernie, but they are no less influential on her writing. The dominant
theme for Pamela is her lack of self-confidence. Pamela’s self-confidence
may be attributable to her early experiences of being over-weight and bullied
at school, together with her childhood belief that she was not good at writing,
although there is no firm evidence of this from Pamela’s interviews. Her belief
that writing was not one of her strengths may have endured into her adult life,
unlike Patricia who carried with her an inner confidence in her writing skills.
What is more clearly evident, however, is the impact that her general lack of
confidence has on her writing practices, which may explain her consequent
assumption that any problems with her writing are attributable to herself only.
In doing so she is enacting a different defence mechanism, that of
‘introjection’. Whilst during projection: What is projected onto another person
represents the material which is unacceptable because of contradictions in
the one who is doing the projecting. (Henriques et al., 1998, p. 258)
introjection enables a person to assimilate or draw in material which
complements or re-affirms their identity, or is consistent with discourse
positions supporting a particular identity. This commonly involves drawing in
positive material, but can also include negative thoughts or beliefs. It is
possible that Pamela is attributing to herself difficulties associated with
academic writing experienced by all students in the study and so in part at
least, likely to be attributable to external factors such as the written guidance
and tutor behaviours. This introjection has a function, however, in that is
consistent with Pamela’s experience of vulnerability or being a victim, based
on her early experiences of being bullied. She may have established an
323
effective defence mechanism based on attributing full responsibility for any
difficulties on herself to avoid challenging others by attributing some
responsibility elsewhere. Pamela’s interviews are dotted with comments which
provide suggestions of this introjection of negative assumptions about her
abilities (I’m full of self doubt, even when deep down I’m quietly confident, I
can’t see why anyone is interested in me so that’s how I feel, this is me but is
it really interesting?)
These extracts also illustrate that the lack of confidence evident in much of
Pamela’s interviews does not fully represent the complexity of her feelings
about writing.
7.4.2 Emerging identities
Despite Pamela’s past personal and educational experiences which resulted
in her perception of herself as a person who lacked self-confidence, she also
talks about her growing confidence, her enjoyment of learning and her
increasing expectations of her own performance. She has the confidence to
feel that she deserved a higher grade on her the practice learning course
assignments:
Pamela: Personally I thought I would have done better on the practice learning course I really did. The first one that’s fair enough that first one was 46 I just barely passed to be honest and then it jumped up to 60 and then the next one was a 60 as well but I thought I had done better. That was one time when I thought that’s not too bad
PM12: Pamela interview: 2nd July 2001
Pamela’s growing confidence in her writing (at times despite the grades she
was given) was matched by an increasing determination to avoid becoming
disproportionately emotional about her studies. Pamela shares some details
324
about the extent of her anxiety and distress when studying for her HND in
Childcare. In her first year of studying for the Diploma in Social Work,
however, she is determined to change:
Pamela: I was determined not to get upset about this course. I can get quite angry and upset.
Lucy: Hmmm Pamela: As long as it’s, like my Mum said to me, if it starts with a four or
you’ve not been particularly trying, she said you’ve passed, anything else you can work on don’t stress yourself out over it.
Lucy: Hmm Pamela: and I can honestly say that I have done that and that I have really
enjoyed the year. Lucy: Hmmm Pamela: I’ve so enjoyed I’ve so missed studying this past couple of months I
probably won’t be saying this in February but at this point in time I’ve really missed it and I can’t wait to get back in and do some more.
PM13: Pamela interview: 2nd July 2001
By the end of Pamela’s second interview, she portrays herself as a person
who is in control of her learning and deriving great pleasure from it. She has
been able to reflect upon the unhelpful impact that her anxiety has had on her
and made efforts to overcome it. Possibly through the (unexpected?) success
that she has achieved both academically and professionally, Pamela is
developing a core belief in her abilities, a belief that she does not allow herself
to fully believe in. Alongside this reserved confidence Pamela also has great
determination to control the emotions, which she is aware are unhelpful to
her. In recognising this Pamela is demonstrating both understanding of the
impact her emotions have on her writing but also the ability to develop
strategies to deal with them.
325
There remain traces of shaky confidence in the way in which she drafts her
texts, her concern over her use of tenses and her assumption that any
difficulties she encounters are primarily down to her own abilities rather than
any deficiencies in her tutors’ support or the written guidance. Her energies
are turned inwards to challenge her own behaviour rather than externally to
challenge the actions of others.
7.5.David
Two broad issues emerge from David’s discussion. Firstly, David
demonstrates the strongest resistance of all the participants interviewed to
writing about himself. Secondly, more in common with Pamela, David does
not look beyond his own abilities to understand his grades or the comments
made on his texts and very little comment is made about the individual course
tutors. David presented himself as very secure and confident about his
academic skills and writing abilities. Despite this academic confidence, David
talks of his reluctance to engage in experiential writing and in doing so shares
more private aspects of his identity, such as his reluctance to talk about
himself.
7.5.1 It’s not ‘me’
David is in his mid 30’s and was born in the south of England but at the age of
three moved and grew up in Lancashire, which is where both of his parents
originated. David retained a regional accent from Lancashire, which he feels
positive about as he is very proud of where he comes from. David remembers
his mother (whose family did not have a lot of money) putting on her ‘posh’
326
voice, and that his father’s family were ‘well to do’ and ‘wanting to ‘move on’.
David describes himself as a child who found school work very easy whilst
being ‘terribly lazy’, a person who has consistently been able to meet
academic challenges without putting in a great deal of effort:
David: I have been lucky in my education in terms of wherever I have actually been inspired to put my mind to it I have found things easy.
D10: David interview: 17th April 2001
Consequently David did not meet any particular challenges in school despite
rebelling against his mother’s attempts to make him work, for example by
locking him in the family caravan to do his homework. He shared with Patricia
an enjoyment of writing, not only in school but also for his own entertainment,
reading and writing fictional adventure stories:
David: It occurred to me relatively quickly that I could also write these sorts of stories as well. I remember writing quite long adventure stories where of course I was the hero!
D11: David interview: 17th April 2001
This confidence in his writing, from when he was in primarily school, also
applied to his studies and David presents a picture of himself as a person for
whom academic success came with ease:
David: I found things relatively easy and I could get the marks that I needed without putting very much effort in.
D12: David interview: 17th April 2001
Early in David’s secondary education he was pleased to be identified by his
teacher as having the ability to move on to University which, as with Patricia,
was an unusual achievement within his family and peers. This prediction did
not inspire him to work harder but rather to sit back and ‘await the inevitable’:
327
David: Mr T said I can see David going to university and I must have been about thirteen, fourteen and thinking oh well I don’t need to do anything more [laughter] it’s all sorted out for me now I know I’m off [laughter].
D13: David interview: 17th April 2001
David went to a large metropolitan university and studied Politics. He did not
express any anxiety at returning to higher education study and remembers
beginning to become more conscious of the way in which he wrote when he
had a blind tutor at university. This tutor required his students to read their
work aloud to him and this experience prompted David to begin thinking more
about his readers’ experiences rather than writing in a vacuum:
David: Whether or not I am rationalising something now that then I was not entirely sure about but I remember being I suppose particularly careful and thereafter more careful that what was written read well.
D14: David interview: 17th April 2001
Returning to higher education after more than 10 years was not a challenge
for David, partly because he continued to think about academic writing
through helping friends with writing their MAs. David also writes a lot for his
job as a welfare rights advisor, although he identifies that this writing is
different from writing in social work as precision is required rather than
reflection:
David: In welfare rights the standard of writing is different from social work Lucy: How is it different? David: Precision, rather than using reflection and internalised thoughts you
have to do your research, you have to know, familiarity with the law. D15: David interview: 17th April 2001
Writing was a significant part of David’s work and he did not have a difficulty
with adjusting his writing, apart from perhaps writing less formally for letters to
relatives. David demonstrates his continuing confidence in his writing ability
328
through advising and proof reading the postgraduate writing of his colleagues,
despite not having attained a higher degree himself:
David: I have not found it a challenge from that point of view, I mean one of the things that I haven’t explained is that when you said have I done any academic writing I sort of laughed at that because I haven’t but what I have done periodically is where colleagues have been doing MAs or the DipSW they have been asking me to go through their aims and make suggestions and edit.
D16: David interview: 17th April 2001
Unlike Patricia, David does not talk about any anxieties when he begins the
Diploma in Social Work, on the contrary unlike any of the other participants
David does not feel challenged by the foundation course:
David: I found the foundation course quite tedious to be honest D17: David interview: 17th April 2001
Again as with Patricia, David does not identify any difficulties in adapting to
writing in higher education and demonstrates a strong critical awareness of
different forms of writing, as he did when identifying the formulaic nature of
the children’s adventure stories which he learnt to imitate as a child.
David presents himself as someone who is self assured and relaxed about his
abilities, although not ambitious. His enjoyment (and success) in writing forms
an important part of David’s identity and, unlike Patricia, this is not
compromised in adult life with the demands of competing identities. David
appears to have incorporated his writing skills (and indeed academic abilities)
into his adult professional and personal life, using them not only for his work
but also to offer assistance to others who are completing academic
qualifications higher than David has undertaken himself. This self-assurance
is also demonstrated by David (again alone in the study) challenging the
329
academic validity of the writing required on the practice learning course
assignments.
In David’s first interview he suggests that he has worked out the rationale for
the sequence of assignments:
David: I figured out the premise, the link between the first and the second and now the third essay which I have started to work on already, which is the identity, you know the identity thing, the relation between identify and the creation of the family, we’ve all got different identities therefore we’ve all got different value bases, and also I’ve a fairly clear idea about what a values base is and what ethics are and what those are to me.
D18: David interview: 17th April 2001
David also talked thoughtfully about the differences between the writing
required on each course (see chapter 6) which he appeared to have been
very clear about and not to have experienced any of the ambivalence or
contradictions discussed by his peers.
David’s awareness of and ability to adapt his writing for a particular audience
or purpose is further evidenced by his perception that the writing that he
undertakes as a welfare rights officer has transferable elements to academic
writing:
David: So for me being used to reading that sort of stuff it’s probably, has been marginally easier for me to convert and I don’t as I say I don’t have – I don’t have a problem adjusting my writing style really anyway apart from making it probably less formal. That is sometimes, sometimes a problem, so letters to relatives are sometimes a problem [laughter].
David interview: 17th April 2001
This extract illustrates again David’s ease with switching between different
expectations of his writing for different purposes, but he also hints here of his
discomfort with less formal and more personal forms of writing. This theme of
330
David’s discomfort with personal writing is particularly strong in his discussion
of the practice learning course which raised some issues for David, partly due
to his reluctance to write about himself. David attributes his initial discomfort
about the practice learning course assessment to the nature of the
assessment tasks, rather than any difficulty or misunderstanding of the writing
requirements. David indicated resistance to writing about personal
experiences and his application of values to practice, partly because he was
not comfortable writing too much about himself but also because he felt that
the word limit and context of writing unreasonably limited his ability to express
himself:
David: I suppose I don’t want to give too much of myself in an academic essay, largely because I think that it is, and this is going to sound even worse now, people can say anything, you can write anything down, and I could join in with that…
Lucy: Hmmm. David: But values are demonstrable in action and I’ve got 17, you know, 18
years, or what ever it is, and I am happy to talk about it if is a two way thing.
Lucy Hmmm. David: And I know this is a slightly false environment, but say in supervision
your practice teacher says…I’m quite happy to talk about it. Lucy: Hmm David: Because there is a chance to nail misconceptions or explain things
in perhaps more detail or just give a slightly softer personal point of view.
Lucy: Hmm David: Demonstrating understanding, I don’t think that there is room in your,
what, 2000 words or whatever it was you can’t do it properly. Lucy: Hmm David: Demonstrating understanding. I’m not going to try and explain
myself in 2000 words. D19: David interview: 17th April 2001
331
This principled objection to the method of assessment on the practice learning
course was a significant issue throughout David’s interviews. Where other
students focused on either the clarity of the guidance or the feedback from the
tutor, David was more concerned with his difficulty in accepting the rationale
for the assessment strategy. He shares with his peers the experience of
receiving a lower grade on his practice learning course assignments than on
the foundation course, but David does not associate this with the support or
guidance that he received from his tutor, but accounts for it by his reluctance
to ‘play the game’ on the practice learning course:
David: I knew with the first one that I was not, I was not playing the game Lucy: Hmmm David: and I knew I wasn’t. And consequently did as well as I felt the quality
of the work deserved if you like Lucy: Hmmm David: I feel that I have tried to play the game a little bit more in the second
essay D20: David interview: 5th July 2001
David is suggesting here that in his first assignment he was knowingly
unwilling to fully meet the assessment requirements and was therefore not
dissatisfied with his grade. In subsequent assignments he moderated his
position and in his words ‘warmed to the task’. Whilst this attitude appears to
indicate self-confidence, it also reflects David’s discomfort with moving away
from the emotionally safe formulaic area (for him) of formal writing and into
the more threatening waters of sharing aspects of himself in writing. Although
David intellectually rationalises his objection to this form of writing, this is
primarily on the grounds that he may not be able to fully justify himself and
could consequently be misjudged as a person.
332
David’s confidence in his writing abilities as an adaptable and skilled writer is
affirmed not only by his own academic success despite little effort, but also
through colleagues and peers seeking his support in their writing. He is aware
of his resistance to playing the game on the first practice learning course
assignments and accepts a low grade as a just reward for his ‘bolshie’
resistance. David gives little information about why his resistance softened for
subsequent assignments, other than that he ‘warmed to the task’.
This self-assured, academically confident person is not the whole picture.
David also acknowledges that, academically justified or not, sharing personal
information about himself is not something that he finds easy. He portrays
himself as more comfortable with the emotionally remote writing of the politics
essay undertaken as an undergraduate or precise reports undertaken in his
welfare rights role. David also seems to privilege these forms of writing as
being of a superior ‘standard’ to the introspective, reflective writing in social
work. The dissonance created by David’s feelings and beliefs about social
work writing create a difficulty for him, despite his apparent prowess in
academic writing. This could be interpreted as an example of a different form
of defence mechanism, and one which is more conscious and overt than
projection and introjection. David is cautious about the contexts and ways in
which he is prepared to share personal information, and manages this by
explicitly taking a principled stand to avoid doing so. Interestingly, David’s
reluctance to trust the process of sharing his personal experiences in writing
weakened (I warmed to the task), possibly because he felt more able to trust
his addressee and found the process was not as threatening as he
anticipated. What David shared with the other students was that engaging in
333
writing on the practice learning course generated strong feelings. David
expressed his anxiety couched in well-reasoned academic terms, unlike
Pamela, Patricia and Bernie who were more willing to openly express anger,
frustration and disappointment.
7.6. Conclusion
In this chapter I have focused on the individual student identities and writing
practices illustrated with the case studies. Underpinning this discussion have
been the concepts of circularity, human interaction and emotion as important
dimensions of writing practices (see 2.2.3). Circularity was illustrated through
the ways in which tutor feedback influenced not only what students wrote (for
example content and organisation) but also the ways in which they felt about
their writing based on feedback. This was particularly evident on the practice
learning course where the content was more emotionally charged. For Bernie
and Patricia, this had the consequence of foregrounding their interpersonal
interaction with their tutor and indeed of their tutors’ identities. Bernie and
Patricia, however, perceived their tutors’ identities through a lens influenced
by the writing task itself and by their own histories. For example, Bernie’s
experiences of racism (particularly in the context of education) were fore
grounded in her relationship and perception of her tutor and his responses to
her writing. Her writing practices were therefore influenced by both her tutor’s
actual and perceived or assumed responses to her writing. In this way my
data seems to support both the importance and interconnectivity of the
circularity, emotion and human interaction in writing practices.
334
In this chapter I have also made connections through the data between writer
identities and psychological / psychoanalytic theories. Sociological
perspectives on writer identity recognise multiple social identities. The
concepts of multiplicity and salience, however, provide a psychological frame
which enabled me to not only explain the number of identities but also explore
the ways in which they jostle for significance in particular contexts, for
example Patricia’s roles as mother, student and becoming-professional social
worker. A psychoanalytic perspective could add the concept of the core self
(discussed further below in 8.3.2.3), acting as a motivational drive, connecting
historical and emotional facets of human experience.
335
8. Chapter eight: Discussion
8.1 Introduction
In this chapter, I will begin in 8.2 by summarising the gap in the literature that I
hope to have addressed through this thesis. I will then present my findings,
which I have organised into two broad sections: 8.3.1 addresses writing in
social work education, and 8.3.2 addresses issues relating to a psychosocial
perspective on writer identity (introduced in 3.8). Based upon these findings I
draw together, in 8.4, four main ways in which this thesis contributes to
current literature: student writing in social work, reflective writing, the use of
first person singular pronouns and writer identity. In 8.5 I offer an evaluation of
my methodology, with a particular focus on participant involvement in creating
my data. The implications of this study relate primarily to pedagogy, and in 8.6
I explore these implications in relation to both institutional and individual
teaching practices. In 8.7 I offer some thoughts on future research arising
from this thesis, returning to the potentially rich vein of applying
psychoanalytic approaches to writer identity. Finally in 8.8, I offer a brief
reflection on my own research journey.
8.2 Addressing the gap identified in the literature
This study has drawn upon research and literature arising from the study of
academic writing within a broadly sociological approach. In attempting to
develop current sociologically orientated perspectives on writer identity, I have
drawn additionally upon a number of concepts which derive broadly from the
336
fields of psychology and psychoanalysis, offering a ‘psychosocial’ perspective.
Psychoanalysis has long (if ambivalent) associations with the discipline of
social work. Although it has been suggested that psychoanalytic ideas have
had little recent relevance to social work practice (Pease et al., 2003)
psychoanalytic theories underlie many of the diverse theories of practice
taught on social work programmes (Payne, 1998). In this thesis I focus in
particular to the areas of emotion and the unconscious, both of which have a
particular relevance to both social work and writer identity.
In addition to introducing a psychosocial approach to writer identity, my
contribution to the literature on writer identity is to focus on one discipline, that
of social work, from an insider perspective. I have built upon a growing
literature relating to reflective writing (Walker, 1985; Boud, 1999; Janks, 1999;
Winter et al 1999; Moon, 1999b; Crème, 2000; Moon, 2002; Bolton, 2003;
Oldham and Henderson, 2004; Thorpe, 2004; Crème, 2005) and a less well
developed literature on writing in social work in the UK (Watson, 2002; Heron
and Murray, 2004). The relevance of the self in reflective writing also led me
to explore research on pronoun use (Ivanič, 1996; Tang and John, 1999;
Hyland, 2001) focusing on specific pronoun use in the applied discipline of
social work.
My contribution has also been as an insider to social work education but
relative newcomer to the study of the field of academic writing. I have brought
my own experiences and reflections as a social work practitioner, educator
and as a student and used these alongside the data and literature in my
analysis. My experiences and disciplinary perspectives have enabled me to
337
draw upon literature and research which has not, to date, been applied to
student writing.
8.3 Findings
The following section outlines my findings from this study. These divide
broadly into two areas: the nature of writing on social work programmes and
writer identity in the context of social work education.
8.3.1 Writing in social work education
Through a close examination of two courses within the first year of a social
work programme, I identified some particular features of writing in social work
education in chapters 5 and 6. The two courses included in this study
provided an opportunity to compare different approaches to assessed writing,
both within the context of social work, which highlighted some issues of
particular interest.
8.3.1.1 Writing conventions across and within courses are implicit and
taught inconsistently
Lea and Stierer eds. (2000) highlight the ways in which different academic
writing conventions are presented to students, not only between institutions
and disciplines but also within disciplines in one institution. My findings bear
this out in relation to the diversity of expectations both between the two
courses comprising a single year of study and also between tutors (see 5.5).
Although data based on the texts themselves and from tutors and students
indicated clear differences between the required conventions on each course
(see 5.5 - 5.6), this was not clearly signposted in the written course guidance
338
(see 5.4) or communication between tutors and students (see 5.6. and 6.3).
Assessed student texts on both courses, for example, were referred to
interchangeably as ‘essays’ and ‘assignments’. The ‘social science essay’
was treated as the default target in the written course guidance and generic
writing support materials available to students.
8.3.1.2 Tutors’ expectations of students’ writing on the practice learning
course were particularly vague.
Students expressed less anxiety about writing on the foundation course than
the practice learning course and both students and tutors perceived the
writing on the foundation course to be more straightforward (see 5.3 and 5.6).
This could have been for several reasons. The written guidance on the
foundation course was relatively prescriptive and there was a degree of
consistency across written guides for tutors and students as well as within
study notes and writing toolkits. All students identified a greater familiarity with
the target genre on the foundation course based upon prior experiences of
study. Data also suggested that the ‘reflective’ nature of the practice learning
course was more challenging than the more objective ‘social science based
essay’ required on the foundation course (discussed in 5.6 and 6.4). Maybe
the most significant challenge for writers on the practice learning course was
that the target writing ‘style’ was primarily conveyed through tutor feedback,
and data from tutors themselves illustrated the degree of confusion and
ambivalence about what was expected of students’ writing (see 5.5). Writing
on the practice learning course was referred to vaguely as requiring a ‘house
style’ which was specific to social work writing.
339
8.3.1.3 The practice learning course involved ‘reflective writing’ which
required the challenging integration of theoretical and experiential
elements
Although tutors on the practice learning course were imprecise in describing
the target style which they suggested existed, there was some consistency in
their expectation that students’ writing should include two distinct elements.
These elements, introduced in 6.2, were what I refer to as ‘theoretical ‘ and
‘experiential’ writing. Writing for the practice learning course, therefore,
involved students finding a ‘mysterious’ path between theoretical ‘academic’
writing and personal experiential writing. Discussions with tutors suggested
that both theoretical and experiential elements were expected within one
student text on the practice learning course and that ideally these elements
should be integrated, or in other words the student should inter-weave
reflective accounts of experiences with relevant discussion of theory to
explain or justify their actions. Swaying too far towards the academic drew
tutor criticism of being ‘defensively academic’ whilst at the other extreme
students risked the criticism of being anecdotal. Tutors’ expectations,
although imprecise, implied the need for an integration of writing based on
experience and writing which drew on theory and ‘authoritative knowledge’, or
in other words published sources. Despite this expectation, tutors
acknowledged that such integration was extremely complex and difficult.
Data from students illustrated a diversity of approaches to including
experiential and theoretical writing (discussed in 6.3.1), but also highlighted
that integrating these two elements was challenging, in part due to the
340
emotional aspect of experiential writing. From my analysis, it seems that
integration involved students moving between several key dimensions:
• a narrative position, in which the author recounted a practice (or
indeed personal) experience
• a reflective position in which the author critically comments on the
experience, and finally
• an analytical position in which the author supports this critical
comment through argumentation using authoritative sources (the
theoretical element).
There were a few isolated examples of students achieving this integration,
such as the extract from Bernie’s practice learning course text in 6.4.2. In the
main, however, students partitioned experiential from theoretical writing
enabling them to regulate the emotive impact of the task as well as separating
out cognitively two potentially different ways of writing. One possible
explanation for the challenge posed by integrating these elements could be
provided by Hoadley-Maidment (2000), as discussed in 2.3.1. She suggests
that such synthesis involves high-order cognitive skills of analysis and critical
reflection, which are not normally associated with early stages of higher
education study. The experiences of students in my study certainly support
Hoadley-Maidment’s argument that an integration of such skills is demanded
of students in their first year of study and that many students found such an
integration difficult.
341
8.3.1.4 Students’ reflective writing involved a particular use of the first
person singular pronouns: ‘I as narrator-reflector’’
The particular use of first person singular pronouns on the practice learning
course and the foundation course is discussed in 6.4, in the context of the
work of Tang and John (1999). An analysis of the use of first person singular
pronouns across the two courses studied resulted in two key findings. Firstly,
students consistently made a greater use of first person singular pronouns on
the practice learning course than on the foundation course, re-affirming the
significantly different conventions of writing on each course. Where it was
used, it was either (in Tang and John’s words) as ‘I as opinion holder’, ‘I as
guide’ or ‘I as architect’, all three established in Tang and John’s study (1999)
of English language essays. The practice learning course texts contained a
significantly greater number of uses of first person singular pronouns.
Secondly, in applying Tang and John’s (1999) taxonomy, it appeared that
although the positions of ‘I as opinion holder’, ‘I as guide’ and ‘I as architect‘
had some relevance, the nature of the writing task on the practice learning
course led students to a variation from any of these positions, in part due to
the experiential / emotive nature. The position of ‘narrator-reflector’ situated
the author as narrator of their own accounts of experience, which then formed
the focus for discussion and analysis and provided an emotional immersion in
an experience. Incidences of ‘narrator-reflector’ typically involved reflections
on the author’s feelings and values in relation to the experience narrated.
These were in some cases very emotive, such as Patricia’s discussion of
working with a dying woman and Bernie’s reflections on experiencing racism
within her work team. There were few similar uses of first person singular
342
pronouns in the foundation course, and where experience was offered as an
example of practice, this was clearly marked as an observation on a practice
example rather than an immersion in a personal experience.
8.3.1.5 The writing practices developed by students involved the key
elements of circularity, human interaction and emotion
In 2.3 I discussed the use of the terms ‘social practices’ (Bazerman, 1981;
Bazerman, 1988; Prior, 1998; Bazerman and Prior, 2004), ‘literacy practices’
(Baynham, 1995; Ivanič, 1997; Lillis, 2001) and ‘writing practices’ (Prior, 1998;
Lea and Street, 1998) . I have drawn upon these concepts throughout this
thesis, in particular on the concept of writing practices. In 2.3 I suggested that
students developed individual writing practices in order to negotiate the
demands of writing and I have drawn upon the features of circularity of
actions, human interaction and emotion in exploring writing practices. As
identified in 2.3, all of these factors affected students differently, but
interaction between student and tutor (past and current) and the circular
impact of feedback and writing were particularly striking features affecting
students’ writing practices. These dynamics reflected not only individuals’
identities and subject positions but also defensive coping strategies
developed in order to manage sometimes emotionally difficult tasks. I will
return to the implications of writing practices in the context of reflective wiring
below in 8.3.2.1.
343
8.3.1.6 Reflective writing involved students in emotionally demanding
self-disclosure
A particular feature of student writing on the practice learning course is the
role of personal experience. Whilst some experiences were associated with
work-based practice, students were also required to reflect upon personal
beliefs and values, which sometimes led them into sharing potentially
personal and emotive experiences. As discussed in 2.7, in a supervisory
context, or indeed in therapy, such sharing of intimate personal information or
experiences might be referred to as ‘self-disclosure’ and treated with
particular care by the listener.
Self-disclosure is not a term that has commonly been used in relation to
academic writing, even within research on journaling or reflective writing. The
concept of expressive or personal writing in the US, discussed in 2.6, is
relevant in that it raises some similar issues (Berman, 2001). Although the
research discussed in 2.6 has arisen from different contexts, one common
feature is the impact on both the writer and marker when texts require the
author to share personal experience for the purposes of assessment. This
perspective recognises the social and potentially emotional power that self-
disclosure can have in any relationship, but particularly where there is an
imbalance of power between the parties. My study has considered the impact
and experience for students of participating in assessed writing acts which
require varying degrees of self-disclosure. Berman (2001), in discussing
personal writing, draws the comparison between the writer-reader relationship
and that of the analyst-analysand and in doing so recognises the similarities
which arise where students ‘disclose’ personal information. Within social work
344
such self-disclosure has a particular significance with associations of power,
social norms, trust and empathy, all factors which have parallels in the student
tutor relationship when personal information is offered in the context of
academic writing.
The experiences of students in this study, therefore, highlight the way in which
the requirement for self-disclosure in academic writing has the potential to
create an emotionally sensitised context for writing (see 8.3.2.1). This has an
impact upon not only the choices made by students, but also on the
relationship between the student and tutor.
8.3.2 A psychosocial perspective on writer identity
Through focusing in on individual student experiences, I argue that there are
issues relevant to student writing which cannot be explained from a
sociological perspective alone. For all four student case studies, writing
generated strong feelings. The explanations for the feelings generated are
complex and individual to each person, but the tools provided by a power-
desire-knowledge perspective (Henriques et al., 1998) offer some interesting
paths for further thought. In particular, an awareness of the ways in which the
self (drawing upon historical experiences, desire and discourses) negotiates
and makes sense of experiences and relationships could provide a valuable
insight into apparently irrational responses to writing tasks.
Student identity has arisen as a theme throughout this study; the experience
of each student participating in academic writing has been influenced by ‘who
they are’. In chapter 2, I outlined the influential work of Ivanič (1997) on
student identity, which has focused on the way in which social identity or roles
345
are played out through texts. I also suggested that there were some useful
concepts derived from a psychological perspective on identity which could
further contribute to our understanding of writer identity. These concepts
include multiplicity and salience, unconscious / irrational behaviours and the
existence of a self as the root of desire. These concepts arose as they
appeared helpful in addressing some of the issues within my interpretation of
data which were problematic when I applied available sociologically orientated
perspectives on writer identity. While I do not suggest that the analysis here is
in any way complete or comprehensive, further exploration of the usefulness
of a psychosocial perspective may open doors to a greater understanding of
what is meant by writer identity.
8.3.2.1 Emotion was a significant influence on writing practices
Closely associated with a consideration of the impact of required self-
disclosure on student’s writing on the practice learning course (discussed in
8.3.1.5) is the issue of emotionality. The expression of strong emotion was a
striking feature throughout all of the student interviews and was associated
with a range of points in the writing / feedback process. All four students had
strong feelings about their writing and the feedback that they received (see for
example 5.6.2, 6.3.2 and 7.3.2). All four students encountered difficulties with
negotiating the implicit academic conventions fed to them primarily through
the grades and feedback on their assignments. This indirect conduit for
information about how they should write, together with the nature of the
writing itself, which involved intimate discussion of self and values, resulted in
strong feelings. Although the strongest emotions in the students in this study
were generated from the practice learning course, emotion was also relevant
346
to the writing on the foundation course. Students’ prior experiences of writing
(good or bad) influenced how they felt about their writing as did current
pressures and experiences. For Bernie, her identity and experiences as a
black woman were central to her past and present writing experiences and
influenced her relationships with her tutor, her responses to feedback and
also her feelings about her own writing. Patricia was influenced by her positive
prior writing experiences, but this alone was not enough to counter anxieties
of a new writing challenge as an adult with competing demands upon her.
Patricia carried with her the influence of a childhood where she was bullied
and did not experience school as a place where she succeeded. David
retained an inner core of confidence which had grown from repeated
experiences of academic success, even where he had not striven particularly
hard.
8.3.2.2 There was evidence of both the multiplicity of students’ identities
and the context-specific salience of particular identities
The influence of multiple aspects of identity, or indeed of identities, is
commonly accepted within the literature on writer identity (as discussed in
chapter 3). The case studies presented in this thesis illustrates the existence
of multiple social identities (student, black woman, social worker, trainee,
mother, husband, expert writer, reflector). These social roles jostle alongside
more emotionally shaded aspects of identity which are more difficult to
encompass within a label but are equally important, if more fluid. For example
David sees himself as capable but lazy, someone who could succeed if he
applies himself, he is also a private person who values the quality of family life
over professional or academic success. He finds it difficult to share personal
347
or emotive information in an academic context and feels safer within the more
dispassionate boundaries of legal advice and academia. Bernie believes in
her inner abilities, but struggles to maintain this self-belief when she is
criticised; she is sensitive to the possibility of repeated racist and
discriminatory experiences which stimulate both anger and hurt, reinforcing
her determination to prove herself. One of her defence mechanisms (see
discussion in 3.8.4.1 and 7.3.2) is to externalise criticism as unjust. This
protects her from her own potential weaknesses and enables her to withstand
perceived hostility.
8.3.2.3 The core self
These outlines are necessarily brief and crude, but they are intended to
illustrate that, even based on the limited interview data presented here, these
individuals’ emotional worlds are intrinsically tied up with their social roles and
subject positioning. Moreover, each student continued to be affected by
significant past experiences which influenced the ways in which they made
sense of events and experiences, their actions and emotional responses.
The emotional and historical aspects of identity, along with the unconscious,
are within the domain of the core self. As such emotion and historical
influences are particularly important in determining desire, or in other words
influencing the motivation and actions of individuals and the ways in which
they occupy social roles and respond to contexts and interactions. The
aspects of David and Bernie’s identities outlined here are the salient ones for
them in the context of academic writing. In a different context the pen picture I
have presented above may be very different. Bernie’s need to project her
348
difficulties in order to protect herself emotionally may be very specific to the
context in which she experiences herself as powerless (see 3.8.4.1 for a
discussion of projection). She has an educational history which has made her
very aware of situations in which she may be disempowered as a writer and
she has developed strategies to manage this. Her negative experiences
appear to reinforce her expectation that she will face racism and disadvantage
in her studies.
8.3.2.4 Unconscious and apparently irrational behaviour were features of
students’ writing practices
I was aware that the text-oriented interview had the potential to make
unconscious writing practices conscious. For example Pamela was made
aware, through the interview, of the relatively trivial error of pressing the return
key after each full stop, discussed in 7.4.1. Aspects of unconscious writing
practices, which remained unconscious, are difficult to verify without the
confirmation of intent or meaning by the student concerned. However, Janks’
(2002) concept of issues which are ‘sacred’ or touch a person’s ‘fibre of belief’
(discussed in 3.8.3) is useful here. The existence of particular issues which
are emotionally charged for particular individuals (or indeed communities or
societies) may offer an explanation for some apparently irrational behaviours
(explored in 3.8.3). As discussed above, racism may be an example for
Bernie, who in suspecting that her ‘structure’ has been unfairly criticised,
accuses her tutor of racism, mixing her up with another African Caribbean
student and anticipating poor spelling and grammar from black students.
Whilst this racist discourse may be familiar and justifiable, there is little or no
evidence of it in Bernie’s case. The African Caribbean student, who she
349
believes her tutor has confused her with, according to Bernie, is a strong
writer. Bernie’s text in fact contains little correction of her language or criticism
of her text structure. An explanation of this apparently irrational behaviour
could be that Bernie has experienced such racism in the past, she is familiar
with discourses relating to racism and, perhaps due to vulnerability in her own
confidence, she anticipates discrimination. What is significant, however, is
that the emotional impact on Bernie is real, as are the consequences for her
writing practices resulting from a negative circularity involving her tutor
feedback. Similar examples could be followed through in relation to Patricia’s
‘sacred’ (Janks, 2002) issue of bereavement or David’s of self-disclosure in an
academic context.
8.3.2.5.Students used coping strategies which included projection and
introjection
Although all four students interviewed shared a common anxiety about
managing a challenging and emotionally sensitive writing task, they
demonstrated this anxiety in very different ways. Viewed in the context of
Chelune’s work (1979) on self-disclosure, students writing on the practice
learning course are undertaking involuntary self-disclosure in a context where
there is an unequal balance of power and a demand for a high degree of
expressive value in order to achieve success. Added to this, students are
engaged in a challenging writing task for which they have received
contradictory or confusing guidance. Success for these students is about
risking more than failing an academic course. They are seconded students
who, having worked for many years for their employer, have a single chance
to achieve a professional qualification and status. Consequently there are
350
financial as well as academic, professional social identity factors all hanging
upon their success.
Bernie and Patricia both appear to have projected some of their difficulties
with writing, looking to external factors (their tutors, the university) to explain
their difficulty rather than themselves. Their defensive response is particularly
clear when compared with the way in which Pamela seems to introject her
difficulties with her writing.
The application of the concept of projection to student writing is not intended
to suggest that student writers are unreasonably critical of either the university
or their individual tutors. As has been illustrated in chapter 5, the consistency
and clarity of advice given to students on the programme can, within the
context of academic literacies, be seen as a good example of ‘mysterious’
institutional practices (Lillis, 2001). It does however illustrate some interesting
differences (related to student identity) in how individual students respond to
such mysterious practices. These include defence mechanisms such as
projection and introjection.
8.4 Contribution to the field
Through this thesis I have focused on student writing in the particular context
of social work education. I have also taken a particular interest in writer
identity and the contribution that established thinking from the fields of
psychology and psychoanalysis could make to our understanding of students’
writing practices. This section is divided into three parts which reflect the main
contributions made by this thesis. Firstly I will address the nature of student
351
writing in social work education, with particular reference to writing which I
have referred to in this thesis as ‘reflective writing’. Secondly I will consider
the implications of my data for current work on the use of first person
pronouns. Finally I will offer my thoughts on the ways in which this thesis
contributes to our understanding of writer identity.
8.4.1 Student writing in social work
Through this thesis I have explored in some depth the experience of students
and tutors of engaging in writing and assessing student writing in the context
of social work education. Building on previous research within an academic
literacies frame, my thesis confirms the complex and often contradictory
conventions surrounding writing within one programme of study. Variation in
expectations appears in the written guidance available within and across
courses as well as between tutors. The labelling of assessed writing as
‘essay’ or ‘assignment’ is interchangeable and does not reflect vaguely
articulated but significant differences in writing conventions between the
courses. Unlike previous research which has identified considerable
difficulties with the concept of the ‘essay’, data from this study suggests that
where the ‘essay’ was explicitly taught using consistent and relatively
prescriptive guidance, students and tutors were comparatively confident in
both writing and assessing. Difficulties arose, however, on the practice-based
course, where tutors expected a ‘house style’ which differed significantly from
the ‘essay’ explicitly taught to students previously. On this course the only
context in which the vague target style was ‘taught’ to student was through
feedback on their writing.
352
8.4.2 Reflective writing
The difficulties experienced by students and tutors writing and assessing on
the practice learning course highlighted differences between the target styles
on the two courses studied. I would suggest, moreover, that the particular
demands of writing within the context of professional social work education
resulted in a target style that implicitly breaches several commonly accepted
conventions of academic writing. Through this study I have begun to theorise
the specific nature of this practice-based writing, which I have referred to as
‘reflective writing’. There is a considerable literature on what is loosely termed
‘reflective writing’, and in this study I have used the term to refer very
specifically to assessed student writing which requires the writer to integrate
reflective discussion of personal experience and values with critical analysis
of theory and authoritative knowledge. In 6.2, I offer a simple Figure to
illustrate the place of reflective writing within the spectrum of assessed writing
undertaken by social work students. Within this paradigm I refer to the two
dimensions of reflective writing as ‘experiential’ and ‘theoretical’ writing. Whilst
the ‘theoretical writing’ dimension has something in common with the social
science essay (as presented in this particular study) the emphasis is less on
marshalling knowledge to build an academic argument and more on using
knowledge (including for example legislation and policy as well as theories of
practice) to undertake a critical evaluation of the author’s own practice.
‘Experiential writing’ encompasses writing in which the author outlines and
reflects upon experience based on either their practice or personal
experiences, including values.
353
Based upon this study, there are some important implications, which arose
from the fact in reflective writing the author is central to the text. Any
discussion or theory or knowledge revolves around the author’s own
experiences and values. This brings into contention the nature of objectivity, a
stated objective of ‘academic writing’ broadly on the programme studied.
Based upon the case studies presented here, the content of reflective writing
was highly personal and subjective, but course guidance and tutors’
comments suggested that they expected students’ analysis and evaluation of
their experiences to be academically objective (see 5.3.1 and 6.2). This
deeply personal content had implications both for the ways students felt about
writing and receiving feedback on their work and also on the way in which
they organised their content. It also sensitised students’ experience of
receiving feedback and a grade on their work as well as creating a challenge
for tutors who were aware (at least in part) of the ways in which students
might experience their comments. Finally, a more concrete feature
differentiating reflective writing from the ‘essay’ which was identified both in
interviews and through an analysis of examples of student writing, was the
extensive use of the first person singular pronouns (I, me, my).
8.4.3 Pronoun use
Evidence from this study suggests that prior work on the use of first person
singular pronouns in student writing has been based on an analysis of texts
that have not taken account of the ways in which students are required to
write in social work and perhaps in similarly vocational disciplines. The
centrality of the self and of personal experience to such reflective writing
encourages, if not requires, the author to use self-reference in a context not
354
previously recognised. Building on the work of Tang and John (1999), I have
referred to this specific usage as ‘I as narrator-reflector’ and have identified it
as indicating the use of the various forms of first person singular pronouns (I,
me or my) to recount and reflect upon personal experiences which form the
basis for discussion in the text. Whilst in this instance the author’s personal
‘experience’ forms the focus for the text much as a piece of research might, it
is qualitatively different both due to its personal nature and also the task the
student is required to ‘do’ with this content. Reflective writing requires the
author to relate this discussion to personal values and beliefs as well as
personal change. In this way it is more intimately connected with the author as
an individual than an objective account of a research process or evidence-
based argument.
First person singular pronouns were used significantly more in reflective
writing than in the ‘essay’ and where used they were predominantly in the role
of ’I as narrator-reflector’. This use, therefore, appears to be particularly
associated with reflective or practice-based writing. As such it helps to signal
one of the clearest features of reflective writing that was implicitly understood
by students.
8.4.4 Writer identity
In exploring writer identity through this thesis, I have consistently found that
purely sociological approaches limit the possibilities for exploring the student
experience. This is because sociological approaches do not provide any tools
for exploring writers’ unconscious or emotional worlds, both of which have
great significance in the context of reflective writing which is concerned with
355
values and personal experience. Drawing upon psychology and
psychoanalysis has opened up alternative perspectives on identity, in
particular the core self (discussed in 3.8.2). I have focused on a necessarily
limited number of contributions from the fields of psychology and
psychoanalysis to illustrate the ways in which such approaches could
supplement current models of writing identity. I have explored these areas
within the guiding framework of a concept of writing practices which
recognises the interconnected features of circularity, human interaction and
emotion as factors influencing the ways in which students write.
In this discussion I have drawn upon notions of identity influenced by the
psychoanalytically orientated work of Henriques et al. (1998), in particular the
existence of a enduring core self which is the seat of desire, or motivation.
Henriques et al. construct their concept of identity through the paradigm of
knowledge-desire-power relations (discussed in 3.8.4.1). The self is the
location of historical experiences (Henriques et al., 1998, p. 222) and is
influenced by discourses and deep-seated emotional influences and, through
the influence of these, responds to and constructs social identities, primarily
through interaction with others. In this way, writing takes place within a
sociological context, outlined by Ivanič in Figure 14, but is influenced by
historical and interpersonal experiences and exchanges. Through writing, the
student brings to such interaction prior and current discourses and emotional
influences which affect the writing process. The writing process (including
interaction with the tutor and the tutor’s feedback) then in turn becomes a part
of the student’s ‘identity-constructing’ experiences.
356
8.4.4.1 Circularity, shadows and representations
Based upon my interviews with students and tutors, it became clear to me that
student writing involved a circular process, typified by the stages of ‘pre text’,
‘in-text’ and ‘post text’.
• ‘Pre-text’ involves the process of preparing to write and is influenced
by students’ prior educational or other significant experiences. Some
of these experiences will be evident in the final text. The pre-text stage
represents thinking (including reflecting on prior feedback and
experiences) and drafting.
• ‘In-text’ is the point at which the preparation is translated into a written
text and therefore becomes fixed and is therefore that which is made
available for the intended reader. As a fixed text, it becomes a focus
for the communicative interaction between the student and tutor in
which the identities are played out. The tutor, in assessing and
commenting on the text, is influenced not only by his or her experience
of the student, but by their own personal reactions to the student text
influenced by the tutor’s identity and experiences.
• ‘Post text’ is the period of reflection following the return of the marked
text to the student, it continues to be a part of the student-tutor
interaction, carrying with it communication from the tutor which is
(imperfectly) translated by the student.
I suggest that this communication is necessarily ‘imperfect’ because,
drawing on Hall (2001) discussed above in 3.5, all communication between
357
individuals involves imperfect translation due to cultural differences between
the communicants. In the creation of a new text (entering a second ‘pre-text
stage’), the student now adds this interaction with the tutor to their collection
of influential experiences. Thus one cycle is completed; the process of
drafting and feeding back being influenced by a number of ‘shadows’ at the
pre- and post-text stages and of ‘representations’ at the ‘in-text’ stage.
I am using the concepts of shadows and representations to illustrate the ways
in which the process of creating a text can be influenced by, for example,
experiences and interpersonal interactions which may not appear obviously
relevant. For example Bernie’s relationship with her tutor, as well as her
educational and cultural history, cast shadows on both the creation of her
texts and the ways in which she reviewed her feedback on them. Similarly
such experiences were ‘represented’ in her actual text in both subtle and
more obvious ways. Biographical representations played out through narrative
and reflective accounts of personal experience were very obvious examples in
the reflective writing texts. More subtle examples of representations might
include Bernie’s linguistic or structural choices about constructing her text,
which resulted from her prior experiences. The difference, therefore, between
a shadow and a representation is only that the representation is captured
within a text and so is less transitory.
The pre- and post-text stages share shadows that influence the practices
taking place in them. These shadows involve personal histories or
biographical shadows (arising from the writer’s past experiences), human
interaction or interpersonal shadows (arising from the consequences of
358
specific interaction with others which leave a mark on the writing practices)
and discoursal shadows (arising from the writer’s relationship with
discourses). I have discussed such historical influences on identity above in
7.2.1, 7.3.1 and 7.6. I suggest that the shadows represent the ways in which
identity becomes relevant to the writer’s practices in each stage of the writing
process. I would add to the concept of biography those emotionally driven
aspects of identity, discussed in 3.8.2 and 6.4.
The significance of identifying shadows and representations as features of a
cyclical writing process is that provides a conceptualisation of writing being
dynamic, interactive and affected by a very wide range of influences. Such
influences are well conveyed by Henriques et al’s model of Knowledge-desire-
power relations:
Figure 27: Knowledge-desire-power relations
Writing
practices
359
The context of knowledge-desire-power relations influences all aspects of
writing practices, including interaction with others, the creation of texts and
also the inner experiences of the writer. This model is psychosocial in that it
does not separate ‘identity’ from social context, but recognises that the many
facets of identity (public social identities and the core self) interact dynamically
with social forces of power and knowledge relations. This conceptualisation
provides an exciting model to further explore the experiences of students
engaged in writing, particularly where such writing involves reflection.
8.5 Critique of methodology
8.5.1 The scope of the study
This study has focused on the experiences of one tutor group of students from
a single university social work programme. I interviewed these students twice
over a full academic year and drew together interview data from the written
course guidance, student texts and interview data from tutors. This approach,
together with my own insider perspective as a social work educator on the
programme studied, provided a significant degree of understanding on which
to base my analysis. I was aware, however, of the limitations that arose from
focusing on only one university employing a particular method of social work
education delivery. A more extensive study would have enabled me to
replicate my methodology across social work programmes in different
universities. The limitation of my study to one university arose in part due to
the difficulties that I experienced in recruiting both students and tutors. I did
initially attempt to recruit students from two additional universities but, despite
considerable enthusiasm from the staff group at one site, neither resulted in
360
sufficient student participants to proceed. My success in recruiting participants
at the university studied resulted to a large extent from my established
position within the institution.
The involvement of students from more than one university could have
strengthened this study in several ways. Firstly I could have compared issues
arising from student-tutor interaction on a face-to-face programme with the
distance-learning programme studied. My data suggested that the quality of
relationships with tutors did not rely primarily upon the extent of face-to-face
contact (for example 7.2.3) but I could have explored this further on a
programme where such interaction was more extensive. I was also aware that
the programme studied provided only one example of writing conventions
differing between courses within one programme. Although my data
supported previous research (Lea and Street 2000) it would have been useful
to include more examples of courses assessed through reflective writing as
this may have enabled me to strengthen my theorising of reflective writing.
8.5.2 A tutor perspective
My intention when planning my methodology was to include interviews with
tutors directly involved in supporting the students in this study. This proved
impossible for two reasons. Students on the foundation course were
supported by four different tutors, geographically spread over a very large
area. In addition some students’ tuition (such as Patricia’s) was divided
between two tutors, one of whom provided feedback on texts and one of
whom delivered tutorials. At the time of undertaking student interviews with 8
participants, it was unfortunately not feasible to also interview these 4 tutors. I
361
was concerned, however, to interview the practice learning tutor, who was
responsible for all the students in this study. Although I did have discussions
with this tutor in advance of my study and during my initial meeting with
students, he was not able to meet me for an interview. I was sufficiently
concerned about the gap that this left in my data that I organised the
telephone discussion and anonymous marking exercise outlined in 4.4.7.
Despite the fact that this group of tutors were not working directly with the
students participating in this study, this discussion resulted in some extremely
rich data.
8.5.3 A participatory approach
In planning my methodology I intended to facilitate a high degree of
participant involvement in the interview process so that students and tutors
could influence the direction of discussion. I drew heavily upon my social work
interviewing skills to enable students in particular to talk openly about their
(sometimes very difficult) experiences. In planning the timescales of my study,
however, I underestimated the importance of building in time for students to
be involved in the analysis stage of the process. By the time that I was
involved in detailed analysis, I no longer had any contact with student
participants and consequently they were not able to comment on the
interpretations that I made based on the data they provided.
In chapter 7, for example, I used data from student interviews to offer an
interpretation of individual students’ talk about their experiences of writing. On
reflection I believe I attempted to achieve a good level of participation with
participants during the interviews, in the ‘here and now’. My approach was
362
open and honest about my research interests and the purpose of the
interviews. My method of interviewing facilitated participants sharing personal
and insightful reflections, which resulted in part from the level of trust
developed between interviewer and interviewee. I was also careful within
interviews to check my understanding of participants’ comments at the time,
through reflecting back, re-wording and asking for examples. As illustrated by
Hall (in Hall and Maharaj, 2001), discussed in 3.5, however, no
communicative acts allow an untainted common understanding due to the
inevitable cultural and power differences involved. A failure to revisit my
interpretations of the data alongside participants will therefore inevitably have
reduced the degree of common understanding which might have been
achieved. There are however broader issues of interpretation associated with
aspects of theoretical perspectives that I drew upon, in particular my use of
psychoanalysis, which are discussed in the next section.
8.5.4 Psychoanalytic interpretations
Although I have found the use of psychoanalytically informed analysis of my
data a rich and exciting tool, I am also aware that it presents some potentially
difficult ethical issues which may conflict with my objective of achieving a
participatory approach discussed in 8.5.3. Much psychoanalytic therapeutic
analysis relies upon the interpretations of the analyst who is presumed to
have greater knowledge and therefore insight than the analysand. This
reinforces an already imbalanced power relationship. Lacan (1964), also
working within a psychoanalytic frame, rejects the use of interpretation in
favour of ‘reflecting back’ meaning on the basis that Lacan accepts that the
analyst is not the only person with knowledge and insight (see 4.9). The
363
unconscious, in Lacan’s terms therefore, drives important and relevant issues
to the fore and through verbalising these issues, the analyst brings them to
the conscious awareness of the analysand. This is a model of communication
which sits more comfortably with the notion of participant involvement in the
research process. As researcher, therefore I am able to reflect back the
(possibly) unconscious thoughts which are verbalised during an interview. In
doing so I offer a point of engagement for the participant; they influence the
direction of knowledge seeking through both conscious and unconscious
thoughts.
The use of reframing does not, however, compensate for the fact that my
methodology did not allow room for participants to see the compiled data and
comment on it or participate in analysis. It was only in hindsight that I
recognised the potential value of retaining the involvement of my participants
for longer, to enable them to participate in the analysis and theorising of my
study.
One particular area relating to interpretation that I would have liked to have
explored in more detail in my analysis is the operation of the concept of desire
(introduced in 3.8.4.1). Without having revisited interviewees or indeed
revised the interview methodology substantially I have not considered it
appropriate to offer any possible interpretations on the subject of desire in
relation to data from individual students. This mismatch between methodology
and theorisation arose primarily from my discovery of the work of Henriques et
al. (1998) and their use of desire after the completion of my data collection.
364
8.5.5 Text-level analysis
In this study I have drawn on my prior strengths, such as interviewing skills
and my experience of social work practice and education. Although I have
developed greater knowledge and awareness of the relationship between
texts, identities and learning though this study, I have not developed text-level
analysis as a major strand of my methodology. My analysis of the use of first
person singular pronouns was the only example of textual analysis that I did
pursue, as it was an area highly relevant to my discussion of self in texts. A
methodology employing more extensive text-level analysis could have
provided greater insight into the nature of reflective writing which might have
enabled me to substantiate and clarify the tutors’ claim that there was an
unwritten ‘house style’ on the practice learning course. For example it would
have been interesting to explore the use of tense, and tense congruence in
particular, as this was a feature raised by students themselves, through
discourse analysis.
8.5.6 Conflicting roles
My role as a member of academic staff, and indeed line manager of some of
the tutors involved in this study, had the potential to blur the researcher role.
One particular example related to the potential overlap with a supportive or
teaching role with students, a role which several students in this study looked
to me for, in some cases directly asking for advice on their writing. ‘Support’
for the participants was limited, therefore, to the opportunity to talk about their
writing, which for some raised issues which they could take up with their tutor
or seek clarification on from elsewhere.
365
In relation to the tutors, although I had wanted to involve the tutors who
worked directly with the student participants, there may have been some
advantage in not doing so. I was not the line manager of the tutors who
participated in the telephone discussion and this may have enabled them to
speak more freely about their experiences and expectations of students’
writing. However, I acknowledge that this did not remove all potential for the
tutors being influenced by my role in the university as a senior member of
academic staff.
In addition to these issues I had constraints on my time as a part-time student
undertaking my research alongside a full-time post as a teaching academic
and mother of a young family. This had implications for both how much time I
had available and also when this time fell, which often conflicted with the time
colleagues had available to work with me.
8.6 Pedagogical implications
I embarked upon this study on the basis of my interest and concern about the
support needs of students writing on social work programmes. I had observed
the particular difficulty which many students experienced when undertaking
writing which required them to place themselves at the centre of their texts.
Consequently I am particularly concerned with the pedagogical implications
for the findings arising from this thesis.
8.6.1 Recognising the demands of reflective writing
One of the clearest implications of this thesis is the centrality of reflective
writing in social work education. It is a common requirement on all social work
366
programmes for students to be assessed through written texts on their
personal experiences, their values and beliefs and on the ways in which their
practice changes and develops, all in the context of theoretically grounded
critical discussion. This requirement demands academic writing which is
markedly different from the expectations of many disciplines, although it
shares some features with other practice-based professional disciplines.
This study has illustrated that the reflective nature of this writing has an
impact on the ways in which student texts are constructed (for example the
way the content is structured, the use of first person singular pronouns, the
integration of theory into narrative) but also on the emotive nature of the
content itself. Both aspects generate implications for pedagogic practice.
8.6.2 Naming and teaching reflective writing
In order to clarify expectations of students’ writing, it is important for
academics responsible for setting assessment guidance to acknowledge the
existence of expectations about particular ways of writing for specific
academic purposes. In this thesis I have offered the label of ‘reflective writing’
in order to talk about the nature of writing demanded for a particular purpose
in social work education. Once such writing is labelled as distinctive from (for
example) the ‘essay’, as represented by the student texts on the foundation
course, it becomes possible to identify specific expectations which distinguish
it or define it. The ‘house style’ becomes public and can be scrutinised.
Closely associated with the naming of expectations is the assumption that
students will understand and have the skills to translate guidance into their
own writing. Based upon research into essayist literacy (Lillis 2001), it would
367
seem probable that implicit assumptions could remain even where
expectations are made more explicit through written guidance. An alternative
approach would be to build in teaching specifically intended to enable the
student to understand the expectations of their writing and develop and
practice relevant writing skills. For example, in this study students were
expected to write about their personal experience and values, evaluate
practice undertaken in the workplace and to critically apply theory to practice.
In addition, tutors wanted students to integrate theoretical and experiential
writing. To achieve this task a number of distinct literacy and cognitive skills
are needed, including the ability to construct a narrative based on their own
experiences (often involving ‘moving’ between moments in time) and to build
an argument which draws up both examples from personal experience and
authoritative sources. These are complex tasks in which, I would suggest,
students will need the opportunity to practice and build their skills
incrementally, receiving feedback on their writing before major assessment
points.
8.6.3. Providing feedback and acknowledging self-disclosure
Tutors and students in this study struggled with the personal and emotive
content of reflective writing. This struggle was exacerbated by the fact that
this very personal writing was assessed. One solution, as suggested
elsewhere (Boud, 1999) would be to exclude this form of writing from formal
assessment. This is unlikely to be acceptable within social work education
due to the nature of the discipline, its curriculum and professional standards.
The explicit teaching of reflective writing skills, however, does open up the
possibility of creating a dialogue between students and tutors which explicitly
368
recognises the social, educational and historical factors which influence
individual students’ writing practices. Writing tasks involving creating
narratives about such experiences can in this way both build trust with tutors
through sharing experiences and provide opportunities for unassessed
feedback. Skills developed in these preparatory narrative tasks can then be
applied to assessed reflective writing tasks.
Tutors also need support and guidance in developing the ability to respond
empathically and constructively to texts involving self-disclosure through using
communication skills closely associated with social work. The particular
challenges of achieving this successfully may mean that a reliance on written
feedback alone is unhelpful and that oral dialogue is required to reduce the
degree of unhelpful interpretation of meaning. The emotive content along with
the complexity of the task suggests that oral dialogue in some form is
important in enabling tutors to respond sensitively to the highly emotive nature
of the self-disclosures.
8.6.4. The interpersonal aspect of student writing
One of the contributions of this thesis to current work on student writing is the
use of a psychosocial lens to look at student writing practices. I have
examined the emotional context for student-tutor interaction and this has
highlighted the significant impact that both student and tutor identity, along
with the nature and context of the writing task, have upon the individual writing
practices of the student. The significance of addressivity arose at several
points in my data (see 6.4.2 and 6.4.3) illustrating not only that students
thought about which particular tutor they were writing for, and adapted
369
accordingly, but that the identity of the tutor had great significance in their
writing. The learning experience for students could have been improved if
there had been a greater opportunity to open discussions about individual
students’ anxieties, needs and expectations but also the particular ways in
which they would like to be supported. For some students specific identity
issues were extremely important in relation to learning to write academically
as well as the content of their writing. Facilitating open discussion about these
issues may have therefore enhanced the students’ writing skills as well as
their understanding of the subject studied. More worryingly, a failure to
acknowledge such identity-based barriers could seriously disadvantage
particular students who had previous unhelpful educational experiences.
8.6.5 Reflective writing within a spectrum of social work
writing
In this thesis I have focused on two forms of student writing which were being
used on the programme studied, and are common within the spectrum of
assessed writing required of social work students. The challenges posed for
both student and tutors by reflective writing demand a clear justification for its
value as a pedagogic tool. Such a justification may come from the experience
of professional academics writing for social work journals, who have found the
genre expected of them limiting and unhelpful, as discussed in 1.6. There is
also a question of the extent to which student writing on professional courses,
such as social work, prepares students for the writing that they will be
expected to participate in once qualified. Figure 11 in 2.4 provides a model for
matching writing tasks to both writing and professional skills that such tasks
370
develop, In this model, reflective writing has a place in the development of an
understanding of the self in practice, but this is not necessarily also linked to
the development of other academic skills, such as the ability to analyse,
develop persuasive arguments or participate in knowledge building. The
separation of these areas of skill development into discrete writing tasks may
be a way forward for social work educators in order to make professional
student writing more accessible and productive.
8.6.6 Identity and non-traditional students
In chapter 1 I identified that the national profile of social work students
mapped closely against those groups that might be considered as non-
traditional students. At a national level social work students have a high
representation of mature women, and a slightly higher representation of black
British students, accessing higher education via vocational Access
qualifications (see 1.7.1). The sponsored nature of the programme studied
slightly distorted this profile in the group studied, resulting in students with
more traditional academic qualifications. Issues remain in terms of social work
education generally in that social work attracts a disproportionate number of
non-traditional students, a group recognised as being potentially
disadvantaged in higher education (Lillis, 2001). At the same time this study
suggests that this group of students are required by the nature of the national
standards set to engage in a particularly problematic form of academic
assessment.
371
8.7 Future work
This study has raised two key areas which offer significant opportunities for
future work. The first is the identification of the particular form of assessed
reflective writing which is core to all social work education and shares features
in common with assessed writing on other vocational programmes, and
provides a particular challenge to students and tutors. The second area is the
further development of a psychosocial approach to writer identity. The
following questions, based represent areas for potentially fruitful further
research:
1. What is distinctive about reflective writing, as used in social work
education, in terms of the linguistic demands made of students?
2. To what extent can the additional category of ‘I as narrator-reflector’
be justified?
3. What is the significance of emotion in the creation of and
assessment of texts in practice-based education?
4. What contributions could be made to understanding writer identity
by a psychosocial perspective?
8.7.1 What is distinctive about reflective writing, as used in
social work education, in terms of the linguistic demands
made of students?
This study has suggested that this form of reflective writing is particularly
problematic for students. Issues identified which do not necessarily apply
372
more broadly to academic writing include the requirement to write narrative
which refers to different moments in time and also the need to combine first
person accounts of experience with critical analysis of theory.
8.7.2 To what extent can the additional category of ‘I as
narrator-reflector’ be justified?
Based on student texts in this study, I identified that reflective writing
necessitated a use of first person singular pronouns which did not fully fit in
with current heuristics such as that of Hyland (2001) or Tang and John (1999).
Consequently I have offered the concept of ‘I as narrator-reflector’ to
encompass the use of first person singular pronouns to provide both an
account of personal experience and a reflection upon that experience.
Although I found this use of first person singular pronouns was consistent
within my sample of texts, the size of my sample was small and was based
upon only one programme of study. For this term to have any significant
validity, therefore, it would be useful to explore it with a larger sample of texts
including texts both from social work programmes in other disciplines and
from other practice-based programmes also requiring self-disclosure. It would
also be valuable to explore in more depth the relationship and possible
tensions that exist between the conflated positions of ‘narrator’ and ‘reflector’
through an analysis of the verbs following the pronouns. This would also open
up the possibility of an exploration of the claim (made by Pamela in 6.4.5) that
the practice learning course involved a more complex use of tenses.
373
8.7.3 What is the significance of emotion in the creation of
and assessment of texts in practice-based education?
In this thesis I have observed students expressing the emotional impact that
they experienced during the creation and assessment of reflective writing
texts in particular. Emotionality is particularly relevant to reflective writing in
social work education, but I would suggest that this is not the only area where
it has an impact. Further research could usefully build upon the work here to
explore the significance of emotion as a factor in not only other forms of
writing in social work (including practice writing) but also writing in other
practice-based disciplines.
8.7.4 What contributions could be made to understanding
writer identity by a psychosocial perspective?
Finally, this study has introduced the idea that a psychosocial perspective is
needed in order to explore some important unanswered questions in relation
to writer identity. These relate in particular to the importance of emotion
(identified above) and the concept of desire (or motivation) in order to make
sense of both multiple social identities and the influence of the unconscious.
To develop the concept of desire fully in relation to writing practices and
identity warrants greater depth of study than this thesis allows. However, the
concept appears to offer some fascinating avenues of exploration which may
contribute to an understanding of the role played by emotion in determining
not only writing practices but the ways in which particular aspects of identity
come to the fore. For example, this approach provides a theoretical model for
exploring the significance of educational and personal histories to students’
374
writing practices, including the ways in which they interact with tutors and with
specific kinds of writing tasks.
8.8 My research journey
Reflecting on the pedagogic implications of this thesis brings me back to the
roots of my own research journey which began as a result of teaching a group
of African Caribbean social work students. My primarily concern was to
identify pedagogic approaches to making writing in social work more
accessible for a group of students who I was aware were struggling. Having
identified that this particular group of students shared both difficulties in
achieving the required standard of academic writing and a common spoken
language of Patwa, my initial interest was at the level of identifying non-
standard surface features in their writing. Despite my awareness of and
interest in the social and emotional impact of the education system on this
group of black learners, my initial direction for problem solving lay at the level
of surface errors, in the students’ texts. In doing so I was drawing on my own
prior understanding of study support, derived from working in further and
higher education, which could be described as being broadly within the ‘skills
deficit’ model. In other words I was individualising writing problems and
looking for solutions which involved filling gaps or supplementing skills at the
level of the individual student.
Through the course of working with these and other students, including a
small funded project and a pilot study, my determination to understand more
about the challenges faced by social work students has led me into the
unfamiliar field of academic literacy and student writing. Through this journey I
375
have come across the work of other researchers who have broadened the
lens beyond surface errors of individual students to consider the roles played
by institutions and educators such as Lillis (2003), Lea and Stierer (1999,
2000), Baynham (2000). This journey has involved me in exploring alternative
framings of academic and, more specifically, student writing. This has enabled
me to place student writing in social work within the context of an established
body of critical literature which, although entirely new to me, has many
resonances with my own disciplinary roots. The clearest resonance has been
in relation to post-structuralist theorisation of power, institutions and
subjectivity, which underpin anti-discriminatory theories within social work. In
relation to approaches to supporting student writing, however, engagement in
this new discipline involved a dramatic learning curve.
As a part-time research student who has been teaching throughout the
development of this thesis, I have been assimilating these new perspectives
whilst teaching. This has enabled me not only to reflect upon applying new
ideas to student writing in social work, but also to develop my own teaching
practices as I have been learning. The interplay between disciplines has been
both a challenging and rewarding experience. This arose from my own
frustration with the apparently restrictive sociological lens used to theorise
writer identity (Ivanič, 1996). Through attempting to resolve my wish to
explore more emotive aspects of student writing, I have returned to my own
theoretical roots in my exploration of the contribution that psychology and
psychoanalysis could make to theorisation of writer identity. In doing so, I
hope to have made a contribution to the research of academic writing by
offering a transdisciplinary analysis of a specific practice-based context for
376
student writing which will stimulate future work. To date this study has been
successful in raising the profile of writing within social work education (Rai,
2004, 2006).
377
References
Alter, C. and Adkins, C., (2001). ‘Improving the writing skills of social work students’. Journal of social work education, 37(3): 493-506.
Althusser, L., (1969). ‘Ideology and ideological state apparatus’. In L. Althusser, Lenin and philosophy and other essays, London: Monthly Review Press, (1969), p. 127-188.
Anderson, R., (1998). ‘Intuitive interviewing: a transpersonal approach’. In W. Braud and Anderson, R., eds Transpersonal research methods for the social sciences. London: Sage, (1998), p. 69-94.
Austin, C. and McClelland, R., (1998). ‘Writing: the maturing of ideas’. Families in society, 79(6), p. 641-646.
Baker, J. H. and Nelson, A., (1992). ‘Family of origin journal writing: contextualising learning in undergraduate social work education’. Arete, 17(2), p. 51-57.
Bakhtin, M., (1981). ‘Discourse in the novel’. In M. Holquist, ed. The dialogic imagination. Four essays by M. Bakhtin. trans. C. Emerson and Holquist, M., Austin: University of Texas Press, (1981), p. 259-422.
Barton, D., (1984). Literacy: an ecology of written language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Barton, D. and Hamilton, M., (1998). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community. London: Routledge.
Baynham, M., (1995). Literacy practices: Investigating literacy in social contexts. London: Longman.
Baynham, M. (2000)., ‘Academic writing in new and emergent discipline areas’. In M. Lea and Stierer, B., eds. Student writing in higher education: New contexts. Buckingham: Open University. (2000), p. 17-31.
Bazerman, C., (1981). ‘What written knowledge does: Three examples of academic discourse’. Philosophy of social sciences, 11 p. 361-87.
Bazerman, C., (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Maddison: The University of Winsonsin Press.
Bazerman, C. and Prior, P., (2004). What writing does and how it does it: an introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
378
Berger, R. M., (1990). ‘Getting published: A mentoring program for social work faculty’. Social work, 35, (1), p. 69.
Berman, J. (2001). Risky writing: self-disclosure and self-transformation in the classroom. Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts Press.
Bernstein, B., (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity; theory research, critique. London: Taylor and Francis.
Bibus, A., Link, R., Strom-Gottfried, K., Sullivan, M., (1999). ‘The writers' group’. Families in society, 80(5), p. 531-534.
Billig, M (1994). Repopulating the depopulated pages of social psychology. Theory and Psychology, 4(3), pp. 307-335
Bolton, G., (2003). Reflective practice: writing and professional development. London: Paul Chapman.
Boud, D., (1999). ‘Avoiding the traps: seeking good practice in the use of self-assessment and reflection in professional courses’. Social work Education, 18(2), p. 121-132.
Boud, D., Keogh, R., Walker, D., eds. (1985). Reflection: turning reflection into learning. London: Kogan Press.
Boud, D. and Solomon, N., eds. (2001). Work based learning: a new higher education? Buckingham: SRHE and OUP.
Bourdieu, P., (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bowl, M., (2000). ‘Listening to the Voices of Non Traditional Students’. Widening Participation in Lifelong Learning, 2(1) Available at: http://www.staffs.ac.uk/journal/Volume2(1)/contents.htm [Accessed 13.06.03].
Bowl, M., (2002). ‘Experiencing the barriers: non-traditional students entering higher education’. Research papers in education, 16(2), p. 141-160.
Brockbank, A. and McGill, I. (1998). Facilitating reflective learning in higher education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bruner, J., (1957). ‘On perceptual readiness’. Psychological review, 64, p. 123-152.
Central Council for the Education and Training of Social Workers, CCETSW, (1995). Assuring quality in the Diploma in Social Work: 1: Rules and requirements for the DipSW. London: CCETSW.
Chan, Z. C. Y., (2003). ‘Poetry writing: A therapeutic means for a social work doctoral student in the process of study’. Journal of poetry therapy, 16(1), p. 5-17.
379
Chelune, G. J., (1979). Self-disclosure: Origins, patterns and implications of openness in interpersonal relationships. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Clark, R. and Ivanic, R., (1997). The politics of writing. London: Routledge.
Coffin, C., (2000). History as discourse: construals of time, cause and appraisal. Ph. D. University of New. South Wales.
Coffin, C., Curry, M., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lillis, T.M., Swann, J., (2003). Teaching academic writing. London: Routledge.
Copley, B., Forryan, B., (1997). Therapeutic work with children and young people. London: Cassell.
Creme, P., (2000). ‘The 'personal' in university writing: uses of reflective learning journals.’ In M. Lea and Strierer, B., eds. Student writing in higher education: New contexts. Buckingham: Open University Press, 2000, p. 97-111.
Creme, P., (2003). ‘Why can't we allow students to be more creative?’. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(2), p. 273-277.
Creme, P., (2005). ‘Should student learning journals be assessed?’ Assessment and evaluation in higher education, 30(3), p. 287-296.
Crisp, B. and Green-Lister, P., (2002). ‘Assessment methods in social work education: a review of the literature’. Social work education, 21(2), p. 259-269.
Crisp, B. and Green-Lister, P., (2002). ‘Assessment methods in social work education: a review of the literature’. Social work education 21(2), p. 259-269.
Crozier, G., (2003). ‘Researching black parents: making sense of the role of research and the researcher.’ Qualitative research, 3(1), p. 79-94.
Curry, M. and Lillis, T., (2003). ‘Issues in academic writing in higher education’. In Coffin, C., Curry, M., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lillis, T.M., Swann, J., Teaching academic writing. London: Routledge, 2003, p. 1-18.
Department of Health, (2002). Requirements for social work training. London: Department of Health.
Deux, K., (1992). ‘Personalizing identity and socializing self’. In G. M. Breakwell, Social psychology of identity and the self-concept. London: Surrey University Press, 1992, p. 9-34.
Dinerman, M., (2003). ‘The great Disconnect’. Affilia: journal of women and social work, 18(1), p. 5-7.
Elbow, P., (1998). Writing without teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
380
Elbow, P., (1990). ‘Forward: about personal expressive writing’. Pre/Text, 11, p. 7-20.
Engel, R, J and Scutt, R.K. (2005The practice of research in social work, Sage, London
Eraut, M., (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London: Falmer.
Evans, D., (1996). An introductory dictionary of Lacanian psychoanalysis. London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N., (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.
Falk, D. and Ross, P., (2001). ‘Teaching social work writing’. The journal of Baccalaureate social work, 6(2), p.125-141.
Finch, J. (1984). ‘Its great to have someone to talk to: The ethics and politics of interviewing women. In Bell, C. and Roberts, H. (eds), Social researching: Politics, problems, practices. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Pp 70-87.
Foucault, M., (1972). Archaeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock publications limited.
Foucault, M., (1979). Discipline and punish. London: Penguin.
Frable, D., (1997). ‘Gender, racial, ethnic, sexual and class identities’. Annual review of psychology, 48, p. 139-162.
Freud, S., (1916). Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Frosh, S. (1991). Identity crisis: modernity, psychoanalysis and the self. London: Macmillan.
Frosh, S., (2002). Afterwords: The personal in gender, culture and psychotherapy. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Furman, R., (2003). ‘Using poetry as a tool for self-reflection in social work education’. Arete, 27(2), p. 65-70.
Furman, R., (2005). ‘Using poetry and written exercises to teach empathy.’ Journal of poetry therapy, 18(2), p.103-110.
Gee, J. P., (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: ideology in discourses. London: Falmer.
Gergen, K., (1991). The Saturated Self. New York: Basic Books.
Gergen, K. and Davis, K., eds. (1985).The social construction of the person. New York: Springer Verlag.
381
Germain, C., (1991). ‘An instructor's story about students' life stories.’ Journal of teaching in social work, 5(2), p. 3-16.
Goffman, E., (1963). Behaviour in public places : notes on the social organization of gatherings, London: Free Press/Collier-Macmillan.
Goffman, E., (1969). The presentation of self in everyday life. London: The Penguin Press.
Goldstein, H., (1993). ‘Writing to be read: the place of the essay in social work literature’. Families in society, 74(7), p. 441.
Gould, N. and Baldwin, M., (2004). Social Work, Critical Reflection, and the Learning Organization. London: Ashgate.
Gould, N. and Taylor, I., (1996). Reflective learning for social work. Aldershot: Arena.
Green, R. G., (1998). ‘Faculty rank, effort, and success: a study of publication in professional journals’. Journal of Social Work Education, 34(3), p. 415-426.
Gumperz, J.J., (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Halasek, K., and Highberg, N. P., eds. (2001). Landmark essays on basic writing. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hall, S. (1996). Questions of cultural identity. London: Sage.
Hall, S. and Maharaj, S., (2001). Innovations: modernity and difference. London: Institute of international visual arts.
Halliday, M., (1978). Language as a social semiotic: The interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M., (1994). Introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Henriques, J., Hollway, W., Urwin, C., Venn, C., Walkerdine, V., (1998). Changing the subject: psychology, social regulation and subjectivity. London: Routledge.
Heron, G. and Murray, R., (2004). ‘The place of writing in social work: bridging the theory-practice divide.’ Journal of social work, 4(2), p. 199-214.
Hoadley-Maidment, E., (2000). From personal experience to reflective practitioner: Academic literacies and professional education.’ In M. Lea and Stierer, B., Student writing in higher education: New contexts, Buckingham: Open University Press, (2000), p. 165-178.
382
Hollway, W. and Jefferson, T., (2000). Doing Qualitative research differently. London: Sage.
Horner, B. and Lu, M.Z., eds. (1999). Representing the 'other'. Basic writers and the teaching of basic writing. Urbana Illinois: National Council for Teachers of English.
Howard, J. and Hollander, J., (1997). Gendered situations, gendered selves. London: Sage.
Hunt, C., (2004). ‘Writing and reflexivity: training to facilitate writing in personal development’. In F. Sampson, Creative writing in health and social care, London: Jessica Kingsley, (2004), p. 154-169.
Hunt, C and Sampson, F, (2006), ‘Writing: Self and Reflexivity’, Palgrave Macmillan, London
Hyland, K., (2001). ‘Humble servants of the disciplines? Self mention in research articles.’ English for specific purposes, 20(3), p. 207-226.
Hyland, K., (2002). ‘Options of identity in academic writing’. ELT Journal, 56(4), p. 351-358.
Ivanič, R., (1994). ‘I is for interpersonal: discoursal construction of writer identities and the teaching of writing.’ Linguistics in education, 6(1), p. 3-15.
Ivanič, R., (1998). Writing and Identity: the discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ivanič, R., (2006). ‘Language, learning and identification’. In R. Kiely, Woodfield, H. and Clibbon, G., eds. Language, culture and identity in applied linguistics, London: Equinox. (2006), p. 7-30.
Janks, H., (1999). ‘Critical language awareness, journals, and student identities’. Language Awareness, 8(2), p. 111-122.
Janks, H., (2002). ‘Critical literacy: beyond reason’. Australian educational researcher, 29(1), p. 7-27.
Jasper, M.A., (2005). ‘Using reflective writing within research.’ Journal of research in nursing, 10(3), p. 274-260.
Jourard, S., (1971). Self-disclosure: An experimental analysis of the transparent self. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Kirk, S.A., (1993). ‘Improving research writing.’ Social work research and abstracts, 29(4), p. 3-4.
Kirsner, A. and Lethborg, C., (1994). ‘The writing of practice and the practice of writing’. Australian social work, 47 (1), p. 27-41.
383
Klein, M., (1988a). Love, guilt and reparation and other works, 1921-45. London: Virago.
Klein, M., (1988b). Envy, gratitude and other works 1946-63. London: Virago.
Klein, M., Heimann, P., Money-Kyrle R.E., (2003). New Directions in Psycho-Analysis: The Significance of Infant Conflict, London: Routledge.
Knight, P., (2002). Small scale research: pragmatic inquiry in the social sciences and caring professions. London: Sage.
Kolb, D., (1970). Learning in groups. London: Croom Helm.
Kvale, S., (1996). InterViews. London: Sage.
Lacan, J., (1964), Four fundamental concepts of psychoanalysis, trans. Sheriden, A, New York, Norten.
Lacan, J., (1977). Ecrits: a selection. London: Tavistock.
Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C., (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. London:Verso.
Lather, P., (1991). Getting Smart: Feminist Research and Pedagogy Within the Postmodern. London: Routledge.
Layder, D., (2004). Social and personal identity: understanding yourself. London: Sage.
Lea, M., (1998). ‘Academic literacies and learning in higher education: constructing knowledge through texts and experience’. Studies in the education of adults, 30(2), p.156-172.
Lea, M., (2001). ‘Review of Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing by Roz Ivanič’. Written language and literacy, 4(1), p. 114-118.
Lea, M., (2002). Distributed learning: social and cultural approaches to practice. London: Routledge in association with the Open University.
Lea, M. and Stierer, B., eds. (2000). ‘Student writing in higher education: new contexts’. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and The Open University Press.
Lea, M. and Street, B., (1998). ‘Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approach’. Studies in higher education, 23(2), p. 157-172.
Lea, M. and Street, B., (2000). ‘Student writing and staff feedback in higher education: an academic literacies approach’. In Student writing in higher education: New contexts. M. Lea and Stierer, B., Buckingham: Open University Press, (2000), p. 32-46.
384
Levin, E., (2004). Involving service users and carers in social work education. London: SCIE.
Lillis, T.M., (1997). ‘New Voices in Academia? The Regulative Nature of Academic Writing Conventions’. Linguistics and Education, 11(3), p. 182-199.
Lillis, T., (2001). Student Writing Access, regulation and desire. London: Routledge.
Lillis, T., (2003). ‘Student writing as 'academic literacies: drawing on Bakhtin to move from critique to design’. Language and Education, 17(3), p. 193-207.
Lillis, T., and Turner, J., (2001). ‘Student writing in higher education: contemporary confusion, traditional concerns.’ Teaching in Higher Education, 6(1), p. 57-68.
Lopate, P., (1994). The art of the personal essay; an anthology from the classical era to the present. New York: Anchor.
Martyn, H., (2000). ‘Developing reflective practice Making sense of social work in a world of change’. Bristol: Policy Press.
Mazza, N., (1999). ‘The use of simulations, writing assignments and assessment measures in family social work education‘. Journal of family social work, 3(1), p. 83.
Mitchell, C., (1984). ‘Case studies’. In R. Ellen, ed. Ethnographic research; A guide to general conduct, London: Academic Press, (1984), p. 238-268.
Mitchell, J. and Rose, J., eds. (1982). Feminine sexuality. London: Macmillan.
Mizra, H.S., (2000). Mapping race class and gender: a synthesis of research evidence. London: OFSTED.
Moon, J., (1999a). Reflection in learning and professional development. London: Kogan.
Moon, J., (1999b). Learning journals: A handbook for academics, students and professional development. London: Kogan.
Moon, J., (2002). Issues in the introduction of reflective writing to students - recording achievement. Available at: http://staffcentral.brighton.ac.uk/clt/resources/Action_learning_reflection.htm, [Accessed 26/08/2002].
Moon, J., (2004). A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: Theory and practice. London: Routledge / Farmer.
385
Northedge, A., (1990). The Good Study Guide. Milton Keynes: The Open University.
Northedge, A., (2004). 2nd Edition. The Good Study Guide. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
O’Connor, I., Hughes, M., Turney, D., Wilson, J., Setterlund, D., (2006). ‘Social work and social care practice’. London: Sage.
Oldham, F., and Henderson, I., (2004). Barriers to reflective writing at masters level. HEA BEST Conference, Available at: http://www.business.heacademy.ac.uk. [Accessed 24.07.03]
Orbe, M. P., (2004). ‘Negotiating multiple identities within multiple frames: an analysis of first-generation college students’. Communication Education, 53(2), p. 131-149.
Papell, C.P., and Skolnik, L., (1992). ‘The reflective practitioner: A contemporary paradigm’s relevance for social work education’. Journal of Social Work Education, 28(1), p. 18-27.
Parker, I., (1989). ‘Discourse and Power’. In J. Shotter and Gergen, K.J., Texts of identity,’ London: Sage, (1998), p. 56-69.
Payne, M., (1990). Modern Social Work Theory. London: Macmillan.
Payne, M., (2000). 2nd Edition. ‘Social work theories and reflective practice’. In R. Adams, Dominelli, L. and Payne, M., Social Work: Themes , issues and debates. Basingstoke: Palgrave, (2000), p. 123-138.
Pease, B., Briskman, L., Allan, J., (2003). Critical social work: An introduction to theories and practices. Crows Nest NSW Australia: Allen and Unwin.
Prior, P., (1998). Writing / disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. London: Lawrence Erlbrum associates.
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, (2000). Social policy and administration and social work subject benchmark standards. Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
Rabinow, P., (1991). The Foucault Reader. London: Penguin.
Rai, L., (2004). ‘Exploring literacy in social work education: a social practices approach to student writing’. Social work education, 23(2), p. 149-162.
Rai, L., (2006). ‘Owning (up to) reflective writing in social work education’. Social work education, 25 (8), p.785-797.
Rehr, H., Showers, N., Rosenberg, G., Blumenfield, S., (1998). ‘Profiles of Published Social Work Practitioners: Who Wrote and Why’. Social Work in Health Care, 28(2), p. 83-94.
386
Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist Methods in Social Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rich, A., (2001). ‘Teaching language in open admissions. On lies, secrets and silence: Selected prose 1966-1978.’ In K. Halasek and Highberg, N., Landmark essays in basic literacy, New York: W. W Norton, (2001), p. 1-14.
Riessman. C.K., (2003). ‘Performing identities in illness narratives; masculinity and multiple sclerosis’. Qualitative research, 3 (1), p. 5 – 33.
Rogers, C., (1962). ‘The interpersonal relationship: the core of guidance’. Havard educational review, 34(4), p. 416-29.
Ruch, G., (2002). ‘From Triangle to spiral: reflective practice in social work education, practice and research’. Social Work Education, 21(2), p. 199-216.
Salmon, P., (1989). Personal Stances in Learning: Making Sense of Experiential Learning. Buckingham: Open University Press/SRHE.
Sarup, M., (1996). Identity, culture and the post modern world. Georgia: University of Georgia Press.
Schober, J. E., (1993). Nursing practice in health care. London: Edward Arnold.
Schön, D., (1989). Educating the reflective practitioner: towards a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Scott, M., (2000). ‘Writing in postgraduate teacher training. In M. Lea and Stierer, B., Writing in higher education: New contexts, Buckingham: Open University Press, (2000), p. 112-124.
Scott, S., (1985). ‘Feminist research and qualitative research’. In E.W. Eisner and Peshkin, A., eds. Qualitative inquiry in education, New York: Teachers College Press, (1995), p. 201-232.
Shaughnessy, M., (1977). Errors and expectations: A guide for the teacher of basic writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sherman, E., (1999). ‘Research and practice do not make perfect ... writing’. Families in Society, 80(1), p. 91-93.
Simon, B. and Soven, M., (1989). ‘The teaching of writing in social work education: a pressing priority for the 1990s’. Journal of teaching in social work, 3(1), p. 47-63.
Sinding, C., and Aronson, J., (2003). ‘Exposing failures, unsettling accommodations: tensions in interview practice’. Qualitative Research, 3(1,) p.95-117.
387
Smith, M., (2005). Surviving Fears in Health and Social Care: The Terrors of Night and the Arrows of Day. London: Jessica Kinglsey Publishers.
Staudt, M., Dulmus, C., Bennett, G.A., (2003). ‘Facilitating writing by practitioners: Survey of practitioners who have published‘. Social work, 48(1), p. 75-85.
Sticker, G., and Fisher, M., eds. (1990). Self-disclosure in the therapeutic relationship. New York: Dormer institute of psychological studies.
Stierer, B., (2000). ‘Schoolteachers writing at University: what kind of knowledge is at stake?’. Teacher Development, 4(2), p. 199-221.
Stierer, B., (2000a). ‘Schoolteachers as students: Academic literacy and the construction of professional knowledge within master's courses in education’. In M. Lea and Stierer, B., Student writing in higher education: New contexts, Buckingham: Open University Press, (2000), p. 179-195.
Stierer, B., (2000b). ‘School teachers writing at university: What kind of knowledge is at stake?’. Teacher Development, 4(2), p. 199-221.
Street, B., (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Strydom, P., (2000). Discourse and Knowledge: The Making of Enlightenment Sociology. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Szuchman, L.T., and Tomlinson, B., (2004). Writing with Style: APA style for social workers. London:Thomson Learning.
Tang, R. and John, S., (1999). ‘The 'I' in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun’. English for specific purposes, 18(S1), p. s23-s39.
Tasker, M., (1999). ‘Tell me about it: on the agony and ecstasy of writing for publication’. Families in society, 80(6), p. 649-651.
Taylor, S. (2001), ‘Locating and conducting discourse analytic research’, in Wetherell, M., Yates, S., Taylor, S., (2001). Discourse as data: a guide for analysis. London: Sage. pp 5-48.
Taylor, C., (2003). ‘Narrating practice: reflective accounts and the textual construction of reality‘. Journal of advanced nursing, 42(3), p. 244-251.
Taylor, C. and White, S. (2000). Practising reflectively in health and welfare. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Thorpe, K., (2004). ‘Reflective learning journals: from concept to practice.’ Reflective practice, 5(3), p.327-343.
388
Timms, N., (1977). Perspectives in Social Work. London: Routledge and Kegan.
University and College Admissions Service. (2003). Annual Statistical Tables. Available at: http://www.ucas.ac.uk/Figureures/index.html. [Accessed 12/04/02].
University and College Admissions Service. (2007). Annual Statistical Tables. Available at: http://www.ucas.ac.uk/Figureures/index.html. [Accessed 22/06/04].
University of Glasgow and Stirling University, (2004). Integrated assessment. Edinburgh: Scottish Institute of Excellence in Social Work Education.
Waldman, J., (2005). ‘Using evaluative research to support practitioners and service users in undertaking reflective writing for public dissemination’. British journal of social work, 35(6), p. 975-981.
Walker, D., (1985). ‘Writing and Reflection’. In R. Keogh and Walker D., Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning, Boud, New York: Kogan, pp. 52-68.
Waller, M., (1996). ‘Teaching Writing in Social Work Education: Critical Training for Agents of Social Change’. Journal of teaching in social work, 13(1/2), p. 43-56.
Waller, M., (2000). ‘Addressing student writing problems: applying composition theory to social work education’. Journal of Baccalaureate social work, 5(2), p.161-166,
Watson, F., (2002). Integrating theory and practice in social work education. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Wengraf, P., (2001). Qualitative research interviewing: biographic narratives and semi-structured methods. London: Sage.
Wetherell, M., Yates, S., Taylor, S., (2001). Discourse as data: a guide for analysis. London: Sage.
Whitehead, D., (2002). ‘The academic writing experiences of a group of student nurses: a phenomologial study’. Journal of advanced nursing, 38(5), p. 498-507.
Winnicott, D. W., (1971). Playing and Reality. London:Tavistock.
Winnicott, D.W., (1988). Human nature. London: Free Association Books.
Winter, R., Buck, A., Sobiechowska, P., (1999). Professional experience and the investigative imagination: The art of reflective writing. London: Routledge.
389
Witkin, S., (2000). ‘Writing Social work.’ Social Work Education, 45(5), p. 389-394.
Yelloly, M. and Henkel, M., (1995). Learning and teaching in social work. London:Jessica Kingsley.
Yin, R., (2003). Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks: California: Sage.
390
